Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
Brennan role in weaponizing dossier now became more clear.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier. ..."
"... The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product." ..."
"... A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire," Chalupa told CNN in July of this year. ..."
"... Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states: ..."
"... Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists. ..."
"... it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." ..."
"... The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation. ..."
"... She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only" top secret meetings with President Obama about it. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference. ..."
"... It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings. ..."
"... The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad." ..."
"... But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?" ..."
Did the Obama administration launch an investigation into the Trump campaign based solely off of unverified political opposition
research? And was that "research" dressed up and given more credibility than it should have? It appears that way
based on an
investigation of open-source information by Tablet.
The outlet's investigation begins with a June 24, 2017, Facebook post by Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, the former
Wall Street Journal reporter who started Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier.
Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who once shared bylines with Simpson, bragged how her husband was not getting
the credit he deserved for the dossier.
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump,"
she wrote on Facebook. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
Until this day, the dossier is often referred to as the "Steele dossier," named after the former British spy Christopher Steele
who is believed to have authored the document.
Steele's background has been used by collusion-believers to argue that the document is credible. But Jacoby's post suggests that
Steele might not have played as big of a role in the dossier as he is given credit.
Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's
role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent
in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier.
The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product."
Tablet also took a look at Simpson and Jacoby's work for the WSJ . In April 2007 -- in the lead-up to the 2008 election
-- they co-wrote a story about Republican links to Russians.
In that story, titled "How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington," they detail how prominent Republicans helped open doors
for "Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin."
They reported on Viktor Yanukovich, who had paid political fixer Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington,
DC, figures. They later reported on May 14, 2008, that Manafort's lobbying firm was escorting Yanukovich around Washington. Yanukovich
would later become president of Ukraine in 2010.
Tablet explains how their reporting may have been the origins of the Trump dossier:
So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson
and Jacoby's eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations
with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing
the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. In addition to whatever sales pitch
Simpson might have offered about Manafort, the Clinton campaign had independent reason to believe that research into Manafort's
connections might pay some real political dividends: A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra
Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire,"
Chalupa told CNN in July of this year.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight
corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states:
Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged
in western media Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.
Tablet notes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would later find corruption by Manafort related to money laundering (before he
joined the Trump campaign). It also points out that Tony Podesta -- Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's brother -- worked
for Manafort at the time he represented Yanukovich. (The Podesta Group disbanded this year after those connections were made public,
and the special counsel is reportedly investigating Podesta too.)
Tablet notes that while Simpson had begun working on the dossier on Trump collusion with Russia, he was also working for a Russian
lawyer to undermine an American law called the Magnitsky Act and that Steele may have been hired to disguise that contradiction.
Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in
marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists.
Ohr -- Simpson's next hire -- also hadn't lived in Russia for decades and was "not a spy, or even a journalist." "In this world,
she was definitely an amateur," Tablet writes.
"Presumably, as a result of all the above, much of the reporting in the dossier is recognizably the kind of patter that locals
in closed or semi-closed societies engage in to impress expats -- the kind of thing you hear in a bar, or on the cab ride from the
airport to the hotel," it says.
Tablet then goes into the bad shape of U.S. intelligence on Russia -- likely making officials less skeptical of the dossier even
though, to date, they have not been able to confirm any of its allegations on collusion.
And Tablet notes that it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview
after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are
now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
At that point, a tech firm had attributed the leaks to Russia but was not able to explain why. The FBI was looking at the leak
but had not yet publicly determined political motivation.
"But the DNC and Clinton campaign did have an oppo-research firm under contract that was in the middle of putting together a file
that would claim that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected," Tablet notes.
The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including
then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation.
But by late October, they had not yet found any evidence that showed Russia was working to elect Trump. So, ten days before the
election, angry Clinton supporters and unnamed intelligence officials
spoke to
the New York Times in an October 31, 2016, story about what the investigation had found so far.
Jacoby would post that story in her June 24 Facebook post, slamming the FBI and accusing it of "ineptitude," while the CIA "hopped
to and immediately worked to verify" the dossier.
She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only"
top secret meetings with President Obama about it.
Thus, while the document could not be verified and was not used in any intelligence assessment because of its inability to be
verified, it was now the topic of meetings with the president.
CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA
had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter
to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference.
Reid then wrote another letter to Comey after he reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails -- accusing him of letting Trump
slide.
"It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his
top advisers, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every
opportunity," he wrote.
"I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public and yet, you continue to resist calls
to inform the public of this critical information."
That "information" Reid was referring to was the dossier, according to Tablet:
According to David Corn's Oct. 31, 2016, article in Mother Jones , the Nevada lawmaker was referencing the findings
of "a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence."
Corn now explains that the "former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters
and who now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients" is Christopher Steele. According
to Corn, Steele said that "in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources,
contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump."
It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier.
Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings.
"An envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried 'eyes
only' instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides," the
Washington
Post
reported on June 23, 2017.
"So was the Steele dossier in the envelope?" Tablet asks.
The Post writes that inside that envelope "was an intelligence bombshell" -- a report drawn from sourcing deep inside
the Russian government that detained Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the presidential race,
defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton, and help elect Donald Trump.
The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's
daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad."
But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority
leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?"
Tablet writes:
Sources and methods are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community. And yet someone has just told a major American
newspaper about a "report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that captured Putin's specific instructions."
If the CIA had a human intelligence source that close to Putin, publication of the Post article could have exposed that
source -- doing incalculable damage to American national security. He and many of his loved ones would then have presumably died
horrible deaths.
Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband's handiwork that landed on the president's desk.
The article is two years old now. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was right. A very strange thing is that Trump proved to be
very good for weapon industry and not so bad for neocons. Still the coup is continuing.
Notable quotes:
"... There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump. ..."
"... The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress. ..."
"... The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue. ..."
"... The institutional Trump enemies are: ..."
"... The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
"... The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. ..."
"... The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes. ..."
"... The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump. ..."
"... PCR has gone senile. Trump IS the elite ..."
"... And Trump will continue the MidEast wars. He made it clear. ..."
"... The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ..."
"... 1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress ..."
"... 2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator ..."
"... 3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. ..."
The below theses are thus far only a general outlay...
There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The
case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency
to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business,
which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling
U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get
the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures.
The institutional Trump enemies are:
The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts
of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan
and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President
Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists'
benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary
power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated
by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency. There
is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence
to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy.
In the decades since Eisenhower's warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is
demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate
in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes
is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence,
the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent "in order to save
America from a Russian stooge."
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed
European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump-all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian
fake news -- the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot
as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude
that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.?
As usual, Paul Craig Roberts is dead-on correct. Just wish Mr. T. would hook him up in some way in the new admin as an economic
adivosor of some sorts. He could make a yuuuuuuuge difference.
Above and beyond what is going on behind the scenes they are pushing for all out civil war. If the electors vote for Trump then
it's on to Jan.20 where multiple sources are calling out for an outright riot. Michael Moore is calling for a not a protest but
a revolution. In response, Trump supporters are now being encouraged to be 2nd amendment patriots to defend against a left wing
radical takeover. No matter what happens you can sure you won't hear the truth on the MSM. In fact TPTB are making sure right
now they shut down the "alt- right" lest any more muppets awaken.
"A whole group of trolls has been assigned to denigrate PCR's warning, which underlines its importance."
Count me in as one of those trolls, because I find PCR to be a sensationalist. In less than two weeks, limp-dick Obama won't
have another word to say about the "Russian hack", aka bullshit, and nothing Hillbilery has to say about anything will make any
more noise than a goose flying backwards and farting in a thunderstorm.
The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the
Military Industrial Complex.
The Imperial City (D.C.) of Isengard and Mordor (Wall Street) want fresh bodies and blood to enrich themselves. No more pointless
wars! No more body bags for blood money!
When the hell will the U.S. Military cut off the head of the beast and restore the Republic?
We can hope Trump can hack his way there, but if not, step up soldiers!
This may be the last chance, tipping point is here.
I have believed PCR is controlled opposition for a while now. I also believe the electors will, like the American People, deliver
Trump to the Oval Office. I also believe this whole mess is mainly aimed at undermining Trump's mandate from the People so repugs
in CONgress can give him a hard time. That won't work either because they'll be inundated with demands from their constituencies.
Screw 'em.
I agree with the premise of this article, but disagree that the deep state expects to succeed in a coup via the Electors. Using
the tired metaphor, the deep state plays chess. They are merely laying the groundwork for something later.
Paul Craig Roberts...the Armed Forces are with Trump. The CIA are a bunch of effete college girly-boys that should be outed
and either be arrested or die for crimes against the state.
FUCK THE CIA and their contractors. Whores for sale to the highest bidder. Enemies of the Republic. Death to them all!
If the Defense-Industrial Complex does overturn the election, their victory will be their pyrrhic last stand and it will be the
end of its dominance. The American people will totally destroy it.
what the United States and NATO are doing on Russia's western frontier is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in preparation
for Operation Barbarossa.
...but we lost because every POTUS since JFK is a show pony or he goes to the glue factory (and he knows it). The establishment
won again so we wait in the shadows for the aging angry beast to die...
So, all indications are that he will receive > 270 electoral votes on 12/19, so the next day of action for this cabal is Jan.
6th when they can again attempt to overturn?
So we will have a lot of propaganda thrown at us yet again trying to influence that, but a) how many people actually pay attention
to this crap expecially over the holiday season, and b) how many people pay attention to the MSM anymore anyhow.
That is a large part of their angst - nobody seems to be listening to their bullshit.
I think that's when the House actual gives there nihil obstat and impramatur to the electoral college votes, and so members can
attempt to hang the process up there as per this below which was in the original article.
Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan.
6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member
& 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out
in federal law.
...
Once Trump gets in office the resultant corruption probe afterwards should be epic! We'll know by Monday if the electoral college
stays the course or steers the country towards anarchy.
Seems to me the CIA and the POTUS has made a complete mess of the world. Do the people really have a desire for them to solve
the problem when they caused the problem??? I think not!
I have CIA contacts.
They are freaked. .. It is even affecting some of them in the physical health department. (Not enough of them. IMHO.)
Now is NOT the time to fold to intimidation or threats. Now is the time to double down and make them back up threats and/or
expose themselves and show exactly which side they are on.
They DO NOT have enough manpower or assets in the states (or anywhere) to silence everyone.
If the Satanic Witch or other Ass Wipes Inc puppet other than Donald Trump (I'm not 100% sure about him but he is the best
shot we have, IMO.) gets put into office, shaking off these assholes will be much harder or impossible all together.
And BTW, in case you think you can just close your eyes and tuck back in a hole until the battle is over they have plans well
under way to kill you and your family anyway. .. I'm sure if you have read any of my previous posts you know what some of those
ways are.
That's my field report and firm recommendations for 12/17/16.
Live Hard, The CIA / CeyeA Are Not The Good Guys Here, Not Even Close, Die Free
I notice Trump has more than a few ex military people around him. A few generals. I wonder if the would call to active military
to stand down? Or to counter a coup?
My first thoughts after Trump selected the Generals was to organize a Military-lead counter coup. He has also aligned a massive
amount of wealth by his other appointments. I pray & hope I am correct.
The Republican electors their families and the GOP have way too much to lose. Republicans will never get elected again...and all
their lives would be in danger. Plus you would get domestic terror groups spring up across the country. Remember Trump won most
of the counties so his support is strong and getting stronger.
The soros and clintons of the world will not be able to control the backlash as they think..and you really would then see russia
and china stiring up big trouble in america.
Donald Trump, doesn't strike me as the type of person, that would lay down for such criminality... and if he puts up a fight,
like I think he will, anyone that supports him will fight with him. You can count me in that fighting group!
"... Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. ..."
"... Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out? ..."
"... Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services. ..."
"... This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans. ..."
"... If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff. ..."
"... How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. ..."
"... According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work. ..."
"... Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016. ..."
"... According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. ..."
"... What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security? ..."
"... Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers. ..."
"... When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. ..."
"... Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other? ..."
"... Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network ..."
"... In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency." ..."
"... Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list. ..."
"... This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention. ..."
"... Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike? ..."
"... What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts. ..."
"... The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated. ..."
"... According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have." ..."
"... While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine. ..."
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the
2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial
to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike
that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is
an "as is" statement showing this.
The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch's claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and
this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific
parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to
be investigated for real crimes.
For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one
other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe
is from Ukraine . How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
Later in this article you'll meet and know a little more about the real "Fancy Bear and Cozy
Bear." The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution.
The article is lengthy because the facts need to be in one place. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to
trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian
involvement?
The December 29th JAR adds a flowchart that shows how a basic phishing hack is performed. It
doesn't add anything significant beyond that. Noticeably, they use both their designation APT
28 and APT 29 as well as the Crowdstrike labels of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear separately.
This is important because information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of
rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to
be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that
every private actor in the information game was radically political.
The
Hill.com article about Russia hacking the electric grid is a perfect example of why this
intelligence is political and not taken seriously. If any proof of Russian involvement existed,
the US would be at war. Under current laws of war, there would be no difference between an
attack on the power grid or a missile strike.
According
to the Hill "Private security firms provided more detailed forensic analysis, which the FBI
and DHS said Thursday correlated with the IC's findings.
"The Joint Analysis Report recognizes the excellent work undertaken by
security companies and private sector network owners and operators, and provides new indicators
of compromise and malicious infrastructure
identified during the course of investigations and incident response," read a statement. The
report identities two Russian intelligence groups already named by CrowdStrike and other
private security firms."
In an interview with Washingtonsblog , William Binney, the creator of the NSA global
surveillance system said "I expected to see the IP's or other signatures of APT's 28/29 [the
entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and
how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They
seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they?"
According to the latest Washington Post story, Crowdstrike's CEO tied a group his company
dubbed "Fancy Bear" to targeting Ukrainian artillery positions in Debaltsevo as well as across
the Ukrainian civil war front for the past 2 years.
Alperovitch states in many articles the Ukrainians were using an Android app to target the
self-proclaimed Republics positions and that hacking this app was what gave targeting data to
the armies in Donbass instead.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee.
Asked to comment on Alperovitch's
discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his
experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the
Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably,
maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "
Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks."
The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or
using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian
losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC.
According to NBC the story reads like this."
The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report
publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is
Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
"But the Russians used the app to turn the tables on their foes, Crowdstrike says. Once a
Ukrainian soldier downloaded it on his Android phone, the Russians were able to eavesdrop on
his communications and determine his position through geo-location.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence
agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is
believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is
believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU."
The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be."
According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that
"intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."
Because Ukrainian soldiers are using a smartphone app they activate their geolocation to use
it. Targeting is from location to location. The app would need the current user location to
make it work.
In 2015 I wrote an article that showed many of the available open source tools that
geolocate, and track people. They even show street view. This means that using simple means,
someone with freeware or an online website, and not a military budget can look at what you are
seeing at any given moment.
Where Crowdstrike fails is insisting people believe that the code they see is (a) an
advanced way to geolocate and (b) it was how a state with large resources would do it. Would
you leave a calling card where you would get caught and fined through sanctions or worse? If
you use an anonymous online resource at least Crowdstrike won't believe you are Russian and
possibly up to something.
If you read that article and watch the video you'll see that using "geo-stalker" is a better
choice if you are on a low budget or no budget. Should someone tell the Russians they
overpaid?
According to Alperovitch, the smartphone app
plotted targets in about 15 seconds . This means that there is only a small window to get
information this way.
Using the open source tools I wrote about previously, you could track your targets all-day.
In 2014, most Ukrainian forces were using social media regularly. It would be easy to maintain
a map of their locations and track them individually.
From my research into those tools, someone using Python scripts would find it easy to take
photos, listen to conversations, turn on GPS, or even turn the phone on when they chose to.
Going a step further than Alperovitch, without the help of the Russian government, GRU, or FSB,
anyone could
take control of the drones Ukraine is fond of flying and land them. Or they could download
the footage the drones are taking. It's copy and paste at that point. Would you bother the FSB,
GRU, or Vladimir Putin with the details or just do it?
In the WaPo article Alperovitch states "The Fancy Bear crew evidently hacked the app,
allowing the GRU to use the phone's GPS coordinates to track the Ukrainian troops'
position.
In that way, the Russian military could then target the Ukrainian army with artillery and
other weaponry. Ukrainian brigades operating in eastern Ukraine were on the front lines of the
conflict with Russian-backed separatist forces during the early stages of the conflict in late
2014, CrowdStrike noted. By late 2014, Russian forces in the region numbered about 10,000. The
Android app was useful in helping the Russian troops locate Ukrainian artillery positions."
In late 2014,
I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the
Ukrainian civil war.
I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking
Ukraine. The keyword Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is "evidently."
Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.
When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no
telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the
documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine
was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped
with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.
Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had
Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would
question Alperovitch's assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be
Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about
it.
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment . Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have
been in deep trouble.
How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and
still get this much media attention? Could the investment made by Google and some
very large players have anything to do with the media Crowdstrike is causing?
According to Alperovitch, the CEO of a $150 million dollar cyber security company "And when
you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern
Ukraine who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party, Russia government comes to mind, but
specifically, Russian military that would have operational over forces in the Ukraine and would
target these artillerymen."
That statement is most of the proof of Russian involvement he has. That's it, that's all the
CIA, FBI have to go on. It's why they can't certify the intelligence. It's why they can't get
beyond the threshold of maybe.
Woodruff then asked two important questions. She asked if Crowdstrike was still working for
the DNC. Alperovitch responded "We're protecting them going forward. The investigation is
closed in terms of what happened there. But certainly, we've seen the campaigns, political
organizations are continued to be targeted, and they continue to hire us and use our technology
to protect themselves."
Based on the evidence he presented Woodruff, there is no need to investigate further?
Obviously, there is no need, the money is rolling in.
Second and most important Judy Woodruff asked if there were any questions about conflicts of
interest, how he would answer? This is where Dmitri Alperovitch's story starts to unwind.
His response was "Well, this report was not about the DNC. This report was about information
we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating
these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is
said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we've already uncovered from the DNC,
linking the two together."
Why is this reasonable statement going to take his story off the rails? First, let's look at
the facts surrounding his evidence and then look at the real conflicts of interest involved.
While carefully evading the question, he neglects to state his conflicts of interest are worthy
of a DOJ investigation. Can you mislead the federal government about national security issues
and not get investigated yourself?
If Alperovitch's evidence is all there is, then the US government owes some large apologies
to Russia.
After showing who is targeting Ukrainian artillerymen, we'll look at what might be a
criminal conspiracy.
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the
election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri
Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US
Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years.
Using facts accepted by leaders on both sides of the conflict, the main proof Crowdstrike shows
for evidence doesn't just unravel, it falls apart. Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a
reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to
carry this out?
Real Fancy Bear?
Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian
positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they
didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and
most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet
services.
These are normal people fighting back against private volunteer armies that target their
homes, schools, and hospitals. The private volunteer armies like Pravy Sektor, Donbas
Battalion, Azov, and Aidar have been cited for atrocities like child rape, torture, murder, and
kidnapping. That just gets the ball rolling. These are a large swath of the Ukrainian
servicemen Crowdstrike hopes to protect.
This story which just aired on Ukrainian news channel TCN shows the SBU questioning and
arresting some of what they call an army of people in the Ukrainian-controlled areas. This news
video shows people in Toretsk that provided targeting information to Donbass and people
probably caught up in the net accidentally.
This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line.
The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target
the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans.
The first person they show on the video is a woman named Olga Lubochka. On the video her
voice is heard from a recorded call saying " In the field, on the left about 130 degrees. Aim
and you'll get it." and then " Oh, you hit it so hard you leveled it to the ground.""Am I going
to get a medal for this?"
Other people caught up in the raid claim and probably were only calling friends they know.
It's common for people to call and tell their family about what is going on around them. This
has been a staple in the war especially in outlying villages for people aligned with both sides
of the conflict. A neighbor calls his friend and says "you won't believe what I just saw."
Another "fancy bear," Alexander Schevchenko was caught calling friends and telling them that
armored personnel carriers had just driven by.
Anatoli Prima, father of a DNR(Donetsk People's Republic) soldier was asked to find out what
unit was there and how many artillery pieces.
One woman providing information about fuel and incoming equipment has a husband fighting on
the opposite side in Gorlovka. Gorlovka is a major city that's been under artillery attack
since 2014. For the past 2 1/2 years, she has remained in their home in Toretsk. According to
the video, he's vowed to take no prisoners when they rescue the area.
When asked why they hate Ukraine so much, one responded that they just wanted things to go
back to what they were like before the coup in February 2014.
Another said they were born in the Soviet Union and didn't like what was going on in Kiev.
At the heart of this statement is the anti- OUN, antinationalist sentiment that most people
living in Ukraine feel. The OUNb Bandera killed millions of people in Ukraine, including
starving 3 million Soviet soldiers to death. The new Ukraine was founded
in 1991 by OUN nationalists outside the fledgling country.
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's
done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If
unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should
look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC
hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch
and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the
skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
In the last article exploring the
DNC hacks the focus was on the Chalupas . The article focused on Alexandra, Andrea, and
Irene Chalupa. Their participation in the DNC hack story is what brought it to international
attention in the first place.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "
After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter
to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within
the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians,"
said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the
hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her
research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister
Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking
investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the
work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and
obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror
Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should
have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election
in a new direction.
According to Esquire.com ,
Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the
past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said
the measures taken were directly because of his work.
Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with
the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state
supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that
tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
In my
previous article I showed in detail how the Chalupas fit into this. A brief bullet point
review looks like this.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start
a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other statements
were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera
wing) called for" What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform
that was developed in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera. When these people go to a Holocaust
memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed
There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and
want an authoritarian fascism.
Alexandra Chalupa- According
to the Ukrainian Weekly , "The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following
the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra
Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money
for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian
emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi, Dima
Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and
Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper
Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows
clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that
show who created the "heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital
Maidan by both Chalupas is a
clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25
year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described
Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young activist that
founded Euromaidan
Press . Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav
Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian
nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director
position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev .
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the
foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh
Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had
to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on
videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to
speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene
Chalupa. From her bio – Irena
Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.
She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has
worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the
Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the
news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian
emigre leader.
According to
Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in
a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the
CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with
Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict
of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton
needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland
Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could
change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to
groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal
conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a
major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and
clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects
the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he
found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups
is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet
for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of
a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm
and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?
Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC
hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and
Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network.
Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network
In an interview with
Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA
amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a
quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon
Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets
site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. This is something you do when you don't
want to be too obvious. Here is another example of that.
Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence)
tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian
Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter.
Trying to keep it hush hush?
This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of
Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him
and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared.
If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared
heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves
and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the
portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and
directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to
promote the story of Russian hacking.
Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the
hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy
Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the
Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say" Let's understand that
Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian
hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we
need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or
any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out
for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian
language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the
tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US
intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war
between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst.
Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he
and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the
government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal
in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have,
the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I
have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is
not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict
with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests.
He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of
interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics.
By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of
the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
From the Observer.com , " Andrea
Chalupa -- the sister of DNC
research staffer Alexandra Chalupa -- claimed on
social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton
conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because
Clinton couldn't have lost -- it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically
tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV
show The Americans
, about two KGB spies living in America, is real."
Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry's admission of being the involved
party to "leaks" should be looked at. " Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia . Do we credibly
have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access
to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.
After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for
truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has
released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for
inconvenient truth telling."
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment
of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations
that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in
U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.
The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified
and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director
J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.
Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their
assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking
actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix"
describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.
Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included
the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have
videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence
community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and
who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."
After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position,
accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of
the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw
no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.
Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission
that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the
intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously
had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox
sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.
The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the
so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the
intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the
press, which indeed did happen.
Circulating Rumors
The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with
prostitutes have been
circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate
who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further
damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the
earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.
However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted
into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then
to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.
Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details –
reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out.
But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse
to publicize the material.
It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians
invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit
or blackmail the person.
In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency
to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI
had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what
the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget
or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could
just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling
Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco
Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.
Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered
a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed
out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence
source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit
both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the
next four years.
Hurting Both Candidates
Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one
of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her
handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her
– and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.
Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to
reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street
bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.
The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the
Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the
election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one
of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be
former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State.
But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the
GOP candidate.
Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the
inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major
media.
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely
thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian
interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a
historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within
the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin
of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the
CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White
House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the
coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.
The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in
the wings as the theater catches fire.
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been
struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political
elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-)
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has
been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a
political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans
without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent
way of life is its durability.
In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and
the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then
except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination.
The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious
tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that
shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics
and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's
plate..
(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)
The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin
with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate
kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones
who shoot straight to the top.
Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am
An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two
major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious
and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations
and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't
read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100
year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight
for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.
Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these
days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking
skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost
in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape
of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay
feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much
as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh,
that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction.
The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the
papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at
the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the
big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their
only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this
site of course)
Reply
Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm
In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by
Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).
It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of
the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly
of spies snoops and snitches.
The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international
haunts for its spooks.
Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each
one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,'
gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,'
'above the law'), funded by the Executive.
You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination,
torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those
strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.
As Hoover, so Clapper et al.
Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has
seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he
dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides
and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign
lands.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm
The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's
text seems unavailable on the internet)
Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.
Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything,
not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise
the situation.
The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws
even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."
The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a
Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises.
I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."
The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am
To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase
in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.
It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these
shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic
in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped
by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to
facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against
"Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario
for the "land of the free" or peace on earth.
Reply
W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am
The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main
stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility.
Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be
trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.
J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting
back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went
on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a
liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle
however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported
Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused
Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm
that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted
their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.
Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the
CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all
of our faith in their motives and methods.
Reply
The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up.
Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten
from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on
Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the
baskets for the heads.
The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face
of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to
be watered with blood. That time has arrived.
Reply
Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the
year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department,
and the whore-house American media.
Reply
Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am
What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )
"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling
class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of
the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of
other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an
existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing
central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly,
but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States:
change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always
worth listening to.
Reply
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about,
he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the
quote.
Reply
D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace
with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left
wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in
the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know
what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know
what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering
from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then
question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary
Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had
thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.
As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left
anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right"
and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment
like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that.
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.
I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I
do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings
with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.
Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.
Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.
What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it
financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial
hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?
What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?
Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?
How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that
our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist
to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.
Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm
"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan
Reply
JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am
"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"
Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.
'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is
a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence,
please.
Reply
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm
"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America
or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close.
Reply
stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!
James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am
Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door .
Reply
Andreas Wirsén , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am
A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how
openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers
have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was
caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards
in Russophobia.
Reply
LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes
place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump
acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.
So is it me, or ?
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm
No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.]
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm
If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government
hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody.
This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian
hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that
the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means
it cannot have been the Russians.
Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around
– "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was
such.
Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody
else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated
myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify
touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system
and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas
took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work"
on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am
We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.
There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by
the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering
for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic
state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy
serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.
The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no
wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers,
make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism),
use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third
party.
RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am
Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction
of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta
is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement
of the early 20th century.
The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term,
too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm
RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better
one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into
that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm
"we'll never see democracy again."
Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing?
Reply
Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence
community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection
is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will
he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman
had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.
Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate?
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm
Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying
& convicting the traitors running obama.
Reply
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around
here.
Reply
Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any
worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't
think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he
was a super stud.
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete
lack of control of his desires.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm
I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised
to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think
it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available,
and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.
col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most
of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi
wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe
hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however
it shows the Clinton as they are?
"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign
States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament
(53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.
"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment
for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated
that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great
Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project
was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only
bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary
to repair it."
Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute
to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was
the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)
Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm
And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone
really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."
The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":
"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be
called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me
what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write
'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority
should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state"
(which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that,
but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]
As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their
history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war
between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total
war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon
controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially
in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will
say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost
regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about
his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted
for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what
they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against
Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see
as their way of life
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives the
order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see
what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their
own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give
the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply
refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War
cliché) this can also happen in the USA."
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives
the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could
see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot
at their own people.
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen
drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem
slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.
Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline,
security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break
free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters
in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw
Pact disappeared.
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon
squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor
histories.
Reply
Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am
KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .
Special thanks to Zachary Smith.
In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.
By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?
-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am
At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections
and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition
of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so
keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump
The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could
be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion,
that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.
Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may
give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence
may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either
way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should
all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.
Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?
Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the
president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported
only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion
of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support
to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically
gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting
president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the
Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.
Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for
a coup existed right in the constitution.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am
I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control
law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even
if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult
to justify by the winners.
I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters
has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them?
Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?
To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start,
difficult to finish.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am
KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.
Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't
seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most
recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to
soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out
of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.
Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk
of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just
cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.
Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take
over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control
mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house
trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.
You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters
use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton
voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other
words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm
KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.
Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm
of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how
people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely
ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.
I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment,
but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive
media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method
other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns
turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good
health.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who
do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two
top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent
and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).
But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking
Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have
a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.
Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am
Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how
all men are created equally well need I say more?
Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which
doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with
this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one
thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with,
'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these
crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you
and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't
end up with a Christian whack job as our president.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative
in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely
been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President
of the United States.
Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most
hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to
block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians
scare him is discriminatory."
Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of
Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national
debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice
emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured
my imagination.""
It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President.
In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the
neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.
Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist
Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control
of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance
of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at
bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.
"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate
government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including
"The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak
of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what,
in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system
is God-ordained."
Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed
comments .so thanks for getting back to me.
In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government
should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely
different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician
interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel
to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then
I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.
Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm
What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale"
by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken
over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious
dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on
punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its
urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed,
only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's
administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot
narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans
believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot,
but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.
A very plausible and ominous possibility.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am
Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli
ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the
likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by
just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just
can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves
me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.
With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and
how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral
vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is
also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate
him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.
I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am
Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report"
and the one on MH17 ?
It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack
of proof does not matter any more.
Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is
only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm
KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.
All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves
the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing
with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline.
Reply
Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm
While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened
with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden
to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed
200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for
the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has
spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct,
so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence.
Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the
last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL
JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone
whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding
the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade
the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for
the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time
on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact
of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century.
That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d
Reply
Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm
You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this.
Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next
President?
And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from
above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.
Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm
Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan?
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm
As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented
his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither
case by "the Russians."
I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what
they think!
I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took.
Reply
Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am
Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically.
Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible
and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as
well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand.
I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation,
including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan
activities during the election and its ugly aftermath.
Reply
Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm
I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility
of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would
be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II,
Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm
Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?
What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page
you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the
20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly
include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy
is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence
by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention
is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections
of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other
nations than the United States.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am
Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort
to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an
intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach
the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This
has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned
by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world.
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has
to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.
It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy
program.
American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report
"Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):
"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation
of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It
made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be
integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries
such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat,
the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."
Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in
2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806
Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the
top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).
75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned
Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.
The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems
(14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems
(10%).
In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as
"counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and
Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland.
Reply
jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something
in them which will hang him.
- said to have been said by redhat richelieu
what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it
on the leaders of the eu, for instance.
if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi
– superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.
it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj.
Reply
F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight
on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any
responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish
like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking
information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state
sponsorship of terrorism.
Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the
"leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent
their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and
self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them.
But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either,
but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice
was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.
The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only
plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8",
not the Russians.
A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations.
That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His
mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA
"front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.
Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented
– evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald
is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the
election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".
Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state".
Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.
It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The
"New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive
network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed,
the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy"
we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.
My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":
"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)
"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to
roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the
sheets in Trump's hotel room?)
" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and
evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)
I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work.
This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie".
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm
First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war
propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"
FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into
the big picture, not the big illusion.
backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am
Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good.
Reply
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Me three.
F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a
statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least
it's worth a try.
Reply
We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of
all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned,
a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled.
Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary!
Reply
LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm
It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap
of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it
existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only
hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is
clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the
way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known
to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile
and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the
guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover
would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself.
Reply
Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm
There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of
Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers
rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism
in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and
held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland
from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic
aspirations".
If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have
much to forgive and forget:
Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed".
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20?
Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do
they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?
This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone
can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook
conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the
president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.
What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence
agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of
the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part
of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player
in this club. That makes sense to me.
Reply
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm
"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are
a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion
to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS
always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the
BANKERS. Read for example the following:
– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.
– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.
– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.
-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal
violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.
-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1 http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest
truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization
Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck.
Reply
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am
Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political
conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced
observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom
done without evidence.
The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is
not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events
are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally
surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and
not very relevant.
The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings,
or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization
works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but
rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for
more evidence.
Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American
dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic
politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that
they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening"
the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective)
– at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became
"interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on
the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors
opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability
to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this
way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM
Reply
Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm
The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the
story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead
use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who
signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped
payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It
would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid
saying.
Reply
BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm
When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high
regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also,
now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless
and their alleged hold/influence gone?
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm
Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial
dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he
afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?
Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors
of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid
the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow.
They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid
saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was
a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion
found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders
were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."
It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs
of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!
It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows
the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its
control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what
it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble.
The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep
State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes
the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed!
Reply
John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm
Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship
with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some
of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol
Reply
There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main
stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived
through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner
so he can be controlled.
I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone
who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works.
Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the
CIA owns the press in the USA.
He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start
WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio
Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it
especially hard to do.
This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA
Team USA.
All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything.
But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of
your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.
When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly
what it wants then what will we do?
We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash.
It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs
it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want
to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept
the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy
by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and
refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation,
people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering
bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding
its leader.
The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to
a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles
when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps
Mike Pence would make a better leader.
All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long
as nobody gets hurt.
One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they
were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump.
It's all B.S.
The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal
Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible
to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred
a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more
than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.
What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot
it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been
likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers
of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled
with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further
increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which
benefit wealthy investors.
We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease
that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into
perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering
it to the MSM too.
The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative
on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.
We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds.
Reply
Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm
This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian
and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to
every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those
parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military
bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But
now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA,
FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's
taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20
million of poor folks!
*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be
vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their
masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).
Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed
late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria,
thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said
bureaucracy is slow(?)
As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable
of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked
a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am
I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being
unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states
as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were
not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very
attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept.
Reply
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am
You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody,
titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British
families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century
Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really
just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil
Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning
strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony"
USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have
been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around
by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community
was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles,
we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a
scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended,
the methods of fighting just changed.
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am
P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable
Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so
that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would
have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't
died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do
the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our
Establishment.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo!
Reply
John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm
Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was
a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized
by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium
the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided
in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went
their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war
supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters.
After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts
for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle
who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans
sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before,
that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess
the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't
have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had
to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on
another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing
residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden,
sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from
eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books.
As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never
have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright.
Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with
small-pox.
Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am
You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took
over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today
with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution,
as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from
EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it
out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it
all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching
Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind
to it anymore.
David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm
What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between
HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?
Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil
conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives.
See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).
Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da.
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm
You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?
Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.
By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER
& Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was
it discussed in the presentation.
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am
This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed
the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave,
Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous
psychopath.
Reply
John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm
It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying
system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good
president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows
little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going
to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs,
more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run
by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump
ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises
or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see
any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an
aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because
he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous
place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on
the stake.
Reply
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am
At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged
by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt
the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end
to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain
call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order.
Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order
of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live
nucs?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm
I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good
of you to bring his name up.
Reply
John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected
to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation
without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs
or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at
a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science,
and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures
to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure
fiction.
Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take
a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here
are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.
Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm
As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb
upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out
into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either.
If it did it might catch fire?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being
so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels.
We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide,
utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage
for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through
technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences
as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web
site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is
that a firm foundation of reliance ?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences.
I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets.
Reply
Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and
international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician
has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.
"... During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected. ..."
"... After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials. Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public. ..."
"... The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal ..."
"... The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had. ..."
"... The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office. It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping, whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again. ..."
"... the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns. ..."
"... The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians (+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more. ..."
"... Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan? ..."
"... They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? ..."
"... For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember what happened next. ..."
"... Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell of a long time plus two hundred or more books. ..."
"... First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement, fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen. ..."
"... Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really. ..."
"... What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem' outrages. ..."
During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against
the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The
foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice.
It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected.
After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian
government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National
Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials.
Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public.
But now the U.S. people are told by their media that it is a scandal, A SCANDAL , that President Trump's advisors pursue the policies
the candidate Trump had argued for. Today's headlines:
The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal
NBC News reported on Thursday that Kushner was under scrutiny by the FBI, in the first sign that the investigation, which began
last July, has reached the president's inner circle.
...
FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would
allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.
But paragraphs down from that:
While the FBI is investigating Kushner's contacts with Russia, he is not currently a target of that investigation , the current
law enforcement official said.
...
There may not have been anything improper about the contacts , the current law enforcement official stressed.
The WaPo author has at least the honesty to note:
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials.
As an aside the Washington Post leakers reveal that U.S. intelligence can listen to Russian diplomatic communication between the
embassy in Washington and Moscow. This is a criminal breach of a "sources and methods" secrets that should be punished.
The scandal here are not various contacts of Trump advisors with Russian and other country's diplomats. The scandal is the undermining
of the constitutional prerogative
of the elected President of the United State to set foreign policy:
Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. [..] As head of government, he formulates
foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs
the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government
official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue the "national interests" of
the U.S.
The scandal here is not Trump and are not his advisors' contacts with Russian officials. The scandal are the leaks by "officials"
about confidential diplomacy, the sham FBI "investigations" and the general undemocratic hostility and resistance of the foreign
policy establishment, the security services and the media towards the president's chosen policies. This is completely independent
of whether one likes those policies or not.
The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid
for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat
has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had.
Trump seems to be taking a different approach. The neo-cons/globalists/powers that be have blocked him from carrying out policies
openly. His policy now seems to be fucking up every geo-political move they make or want make. What has come of his flashbangs
and war talk so far since he appeared to go full neo-con. In each case the opposite to what appeared his neo-con intention, with
a result closer to his campaign position.
US arms sales to the Saudi's? If its tanks and armoured vehicles, the Houthi's will turn them to scrap. From what I have read,
Saudi's have more tanks and planes than they can ever use anyway. If it's smaller stuff that can be past on to the jihadists,
that's a different matter. He seems to be milking the Saudi's dry and setting them up for a fall.
Iran. What will come of that? More war talk and flash bangs?
Obama wanted some sort of detente with Iran. Why? Because Obama was a benign forgiving sort of fellow? Still some time to go
to be sure of where Trump is headed, but at the moment, he is messing up the Obama/Clinton/Neo-con plans
It is a bit hasty to declare Trumpistas as innocent victims. The sinister narrative is that Russian equivalent of NSA got hold
of valuable secrets of Democratic party and passed them to Republicans in exchange for favorable policies.
The benign narrative
that b favors is that Democrats have fallen victim of non-Russian related leaks and Trump wanted to change the policy in respect
to Russia because he has a different perception of American national interests on those issues as he duly announced during his
election campaign. Once elected, he had legal and moral mandate to discuss some stuff with Russians to "hit the ground running
in January".
The benign narrative is spoiled by the existence of the actual leaks, moreover, if Trump wanted to exercise his moral prerogative,
he should send Flynn, an associate that actually could figure out what he would be talking about with Russians, to the embassy
to be duly photographed on the way there by reporters, giving them some soundbites about the purpose. He did not need any secret
channels at this point.
The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign
policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office.
It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the
outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping,
whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again.
Trump is like the new guy who does not really hate hunting, to the contrary, but have never ridden a horse and given a choice,
he would simply stick to golf and pussy grabbing. Could we modify the hunt with dog packs so I could use a golf cart, say, we
could hunt badgers? (Iran? I am stretching the analogy to the limit.) You can see how the entire hunting establishment is barfing.
Only the fox hunt lends itself to cooperation and elegance, shooting pheasants purchased by the dozen is a good for shooting practice
but it will never, ever replace the pursuit of proper game for the nobles.
The same week that Trump released a budget proposal that calls for $1.7 trillion in social cuts, including the virtual destruction
of Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, the Democrats and allied media outlets have continued to focus on
his alleged collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This, in turn, is based on claims that Putin hacked Democratic
Party emails during the election campaign and gave them to WikiLeaks to publish in order to embarrass Hillary Clinton and tip
the election to Trump-claims that have not been backed up by any substantive evidence.
Also last December, Kushner met with Sergei Gorkov, the head of the Russian bank Vnesheconombank, which has been under US
sanctions since 2014. That meeting points to the completely corrupt character of the Trump presidency, which has brought the
criminality that pervades Wall Street into the White House. Trump officials described the meeting as routine and inconsequential,
but the bank described it as a "negotiation" about "promising business lines and sectors."
ABC News reported that the meeting was part of talks "with a number of potential investors" about the development of a skyscraper
on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan owned by the Kushner family real estate firm, Kushner Companies.
when the rump talks about getting along with the russians, this is what he has in mind. oligarchic theft oligarch-to-oligarch
'globalist' money laundering. and wouldn't it be nice to have secure communications to conduct such discussions over.
the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are
instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come
to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one
can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns.
Anti-Russian hysteria reaches levels that I would not guess that are possible. How a software businessman can get so deranged
that he manhandles a reporter by grabbing him by the neck, slamming on the ground and punching on the face?
Richard Nephew, the former principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the state department, told the Guardian
that "there is definitely a question here but my initial reaction is that this is not something to freak out about".
He added: "Index funds [Gianforte has 0.1% of his holding in index funds based on Russian stocks] are usually just
like mutual funds, excluded from consideration from a sanctions perspective because the ownership stake per person is incredibly
small."
But he noted that it did raise some concerns from "a Russia policy perspective" as a conflict of interest because "betting
on Russia's economy is problematic".
The Dems created the Trump-Russia "ties", "alliance", or what-not, as a multi-purpose tool.
> of course merely to keep the neo-cons-libs and **payers** on board, and persevere in the present scheme, with rah rah USA,
Israel, KSA, Qatar (..), Muslim brothers and sisters and djhadists, against Assad, Iran, and Russia, in a multi-facetted proxy
war. 1
> it provides an excuse for the Clinton loss - the whole mess, her unpopularity, lousy campaign, is blamed on Russian machinations
via or with Trump, convenient scape-goats.
> DNC/Dem turpitude and crime and convolutions (fixing the primaries againt Sanders, e-mail scandal, Podesta mails, leaks,
ex. Seth Rich - blowing up now, and much more!) are left in the shade, and/or become so confused that the 'base' just blames Russia,
all can be attributed to the hidden evil influence of a powerful enemy.
> the accusation are so broad, amorphous (don't point to any specific actions, sayings, so one can ratisser large -
scan widely) anything will fly. This is the wedge a large section of the PTB has settled on to impeach Trump. A vicious underground
war is taking place. Trump is defending himself, but not well, perhaps it is impossible, idk. The landscape was evident from the
moment he chose Pence as VP (2) then he let Flynn go - collaboration and appeasement in Bizness and Politics don't work in the
same way.
1. Heh "Social democrats" showing their true heart-heart for apartheid, fundamentalist oppressive religion, cabals of despotic
cruel unelected royals, hyper control of women, murder of blacks, war and bombs on millions of innocent ppl, and banksters scammers!
2. From far off, surprising. A renewal and change agenda would have mandated a less marked figure - perhaps just a neutral
place-holder, or a little-known appeal candidate (white youngish woman for ex. but not Palin!), or a total break-away thingie.
Trump either did not understand this or could not effect it. Idk.
The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians
(+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more.
Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question
for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war
profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan?
They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him
personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There
is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood
lust to bring him down?
For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass
the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember
what happened next.
Trump is seen as racist, sexist and fascist in some quarters. Israel isn't too crazy about him either. But it could just be a
small group running the anti-Trump campaign. Sending out emails is a job. The idea is to impeach him or get him to resign. I'm
not sure how much average Americans care.
Wow, if having a secret back channel to discuss foreign policy is a crime, then let HENRY KISSINGER be the first to be put on
trial, convicted and executed!
Whoa, what about those jobs Trump promised? Making nice w/Russia will un-employ thousands of overpaid intelligence personnel and
thousands of SA jihadis!
Russia is a mostly white, mostly Christian nation, a natural ally of Occupied America, unless our Overlord is PO about the
rapprochement.
The opening of secret back channels is almost routine with US presidents. Obama initiated contacts with Iran in the winter of
2011-12. The BostonGlobe published one of many stories on this. In Feb 2012 there was even a more informal envoy who went to Tehran
(the person, I forget the details, was a private citizen and friend of Obama from his Chicago days) to sound out possibilities
for the nuclear deal.
Khalid at #2 is dismally naive. We are not shilling for Trump, what we see is that the highly secretive US intelligence agencies
are attempting to take over US foreign policy to thwart Trump's efforts at detente with Russia, which is the one thing he campaigned
on and is trying to achieve. Maybe Khalid wants the US to go to war with Russia but we don't.
.... what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? frances about Trump at 13.
DT is an interloper, a maverick, a time-bomb. He has made enough threats, has enough dirt to bring down the central Gvmt. US
apparatus. (E.g. Finance/Banking, Clinton Foundation, Pizzagate, no doubt more, other.)
He is a threat to the whole status quo, the fake duolopy (Dem-Rep), but is using this power in a Mafia-like landscape (as are
the others), in true corrupt fashion, for personal advantage, which includes acclamation and admiration. In that sense he is part
of the system and playing within it. That is one of the reasons he is gingerly tolerated, and hasn't been 'suicided' (yet.) Still,
someone 'breaking in' like Trump did (the Republicans in lame disarray, the media running their own agenda, the Dems asleep at
the wheel, nobody in charge, everyone just on their personal profit gig) is terrifying, and shows up the extreme vulnerability
of the instituted powers, which is unbearable to all of them, so they loathe, despise, Trump with a supreme passion.
Why does the U.S. Borg State hate Russia and China and Iran, but loves Israel and Saudi Arabia and Ukraine?
1) The American Empire program is suffering a collapse in global influence in the 21st century, much as the British and French
Empire programs collapsed after in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. GW Bush's Iraq invasion, and Obama's Libya-Syria regime change
program, will almost certainly be viewed by historians as the last gasps of the Empire program (comparable to Britain in Iran
and the Suez Canal issue in Egypt in the 1950s, the independence of Pakistan and India, France's loss of Indochina and Algeria,
etc.). This is what the Borg State is trying to reverse. Their only allies in this are pet client states like Saudi Arabia, Israel
and the Ukraine - all with serious human rights and lack-of-democracy issues. Borg State efforts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and
Syria have all been major debacles.
2) Russia in particular is upsetting the Borg ever since Putin rejected the Boris Yeltsin-era programs (takover of the Russian
oil industry by U.S. and British banks in particular) and imprisoned America's favorite Russian plutocrat, Mikhail Khordokovsky
and booted out Berevozsky and Gusinsky (the latter two being key players in electing Boris Yeltsin to a second term in 1996, if
you want to talk about foreign influence in elections!). China is behaving similarly, running its own Central Asian economic
integration plan through to Iran (note: not a military invasion) and exerting influence over the South China Sea (which is
rather like its Gulf of Mexico, isn't it? Don't see any Chinese naval vessels doing "freedom of navigation there". Ditto for Russia's
Black Sea.
There's another big issue for the Borg State: loss of domestic political control. Their agenda for the election was a puppet
show featuring Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush; they almost lost complete control (which would have meant a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald
Trump general election). They managed to put Clinton in the general election by nefarious means, with corporate media support
(as in Russia in 1996), but then Trump won - with once-Democratic states like Ohio, etc. that were hit hardest by neoliberal trade
policies giving him the edge.
But Trump is quickly demonstrating that he's can be just as much a tool of Borg State interests as Hillary Clinton was - his
love-in with the Saudis being exhibit A, followed by typical bowing to the Israeli government, along with loading his administration
up with the very Wall Street insiders who've spent decades screwing over the very people who supported him in Ohio and other industrial
wastelands whose jobs have been shipped to Mexico, China and India so fat cats can get fatter. Trump looks to be playing the same
games Hillary Clinton did with the Saudis; something like $100 million from the Saudis & UAE has been deposited in a Ivanka Trump-related
foundation/endowment. This has been GCC Arab policy for decades - bribe U.S. politicians for support; bailing out GW Bush, dumping
millions into foundations linked to the Clintons and McCain, buying billions in U.S. arms - it's the only reason they're still
in power, otherwise Saudi Arabia would have seen a democratic revolution and the House of Saud's 15,000 members would be getting
drunk in Europe and Switzerland after being evicted.
Meanwhile, under this media circus spilling over the U.S. (which is best just ignored), we have the U.S. military in Mosul
coordinating with Iraqi Army efforts to kick out ISIS, the Iraqis also coordinated with Iranian-backed Shia militias. No reporting
on this in the U.S. media but here's a good clip from France24: Exclusive: Inside the Battle for Mosul, May 26
All you can really say about American corporate media is that it's almost useless as an information source on global events.
It's consolidate Borg State propaganda and until some politician dares to bring anti-trust legislation aimed at breaking up the
media cartels into hundreds of independent outlets, none of that will change.
toivo, it was Sultan Qaboos the Sultan of Oman who was the instrumental go between for obama and iran. I agree with khalid "Trump
is a huckster, a salesman and a bully. He is not a friend of anybody but himself" and fully agree with everything b has written.
i think, more than anything, the establishment dems controlling the dem party have determined the best way to take down trump
and ensure they will win the next election plus distract Americans from their culpability for hoisting the most undesirable candidate
imaginable into the election process is -- this cold war replay of demonizing Russia.
As far as Trump and Iran, this from a few days ago should raise questions about whether Trump has come around to the Clinton view
on foreign policy agendas:
The U.S. Treasury is reviewing licenses for Boeing Co and Airbus to sell aircraft to Iran, department head Steven Mnuchin said
on Wednesday, telling lawmakers he would increase sanctions pressure on Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Thr National Security establishment doesn't like having people in who they feel they can't control or who aren't "made". It's
not enough to be a billionaire or a former ex-FBI informant. Obama was establishment. Vetted. Clintons ditto. Bushes are of the
royal blood. Someone like Perot: have to make them look craaazy! Really they are all crazy and these are clique fights. Don't
believe Trump and his gang won't in the end irradiate anyone that stands in the way of their dominance. The tip-off is the torture.
They're all depraved. The UN Committee Against Torture states the US tortures today, not just under Bush/Cheney. Press and politicians
and lazy Americans yawn. So what? Meanwhile blacks shot down in greater numbers. Refugees and Muslims cower in fear. The superannuated
elderly are slotted for the kind scythe of medical neglect. But Lockheed and Raytheon and General Dynamics and their ilk dine
in splendor. The journalists of the people at the NYT, Washington Post, etc. make out at $200 grand per year. Dancing, dancing
on the good ship USS NukeApocalyse.
Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is
steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because
he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell
of a long time plus two hundred or more books.
Trump seems to function on some primordial level of hunches and we should be grateful for some of them. Almost daily news of
new equipment or troops being sent to the Baltics/Poland etc. that we saw in the Obama days seems to have died down. He does not
like Poroshenko's Ukraine. The fight is in Washington where it is safe, at least for the time being. Yes, he sold the Saudis a
bunch of new stuff but you felt he was happy because business-wise he had them over a barrel (pun excused I hope). I can just
see him give out the order, "Send 'em a load of junk."
Trump is an elite spanner in the works. Due to his enormous ego he was bound to make it difficult for the political elites
because he's an elite.
@Khalid, I think B. has some good points you're ignoring.
First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this
big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw
Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement,
fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better
spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen.
But, this was something that drove the unelected Borg State bureaucrats crazy and was one of the main reasons for their
attacks on Trump. They want to go back to Cold War era thinking - and Russia is not a military threat, it's just that they're
the dominant gas supplier to Europe and they've thwarted the rise of ISIS in Syria and prevented a Libya-like outcome in Syria.
Russia's main problem is that it hasn't diversified its economy away from fossil fuels, particularly its exports, unlike China.
But the Russian government does recognize this (see Putin's most recent "State of the Union" speech).
Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the
corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on
Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and
his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private
financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really.
nonsense factory @ 26. Agree with the gist of what you wrote ...
Still overall there is a kind of mystery. What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems
to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem'
outrages. (Talk about sanctions etc. doesn't count.) The Russians were warned, and it seems like there were not more than
10 deaths and little or no damage (didn't follow this closely)? The MSM and PTB came out in praise, saying Good Boy! as
to a dog or cute toddler when they finally get with the agenda and jump through a hoop.
Then DT runs off to the only ones who hit the like button 50 times, KSA and Isr. (Plus off to the Pope for balance?) Previous
he attempts some links with China while adopting a sorta belligerent attitude - and making a huge sturm und drang about
N Korea.
All of which - I mean all of it - amounts to very little in terms of foreign policy actions. It is as if he was pretending
to don a role, or is playing a double game. What is in question here of course is not DT's personal aims/understanding but the
actions of the USA. I feel I am missing some parts of a puzzle. But maybe I am over-analyzing the 'death and convulsions of Empire'
situation (point 1, very important and mostly denied.)
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top
FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
Notable quotes:
"... This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present. ..."
"... If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement agency has gone rogue. ..."
"... Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said, though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to understand why. ..."
"... Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to records and interviews obtained by True Pundit. ..."
"... According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing room ..."
"... "McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment," a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not." ..."
"... McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation. No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation. Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation. ..."
"... FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau. Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. ..."
"... in the midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016. ..."
"... The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges. ..."
"... Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime the FBI is tasked with investigating ..."
Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than
a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President
Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn
and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered
few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as
16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence
apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement
agency has gone rogue.
The non-elected hierarchy that steer the FBI have declared war on President Trump and his White House inner circle. Make no mistake.
Days after the McCabe tirade, Flynn was forced to resign. That was no coincidence. This is how secret coups waged by the top law
enforcement personnel in the top law enforcement agency in any country operate. Efficiently. If the FBI wants you silenced or out
of a job, you'll be unemployed. Ask Michael Flynn and countless others.
Part of the plan hatched at that gathering was to make sure Flynn's wiretapped conversations were leaked to the media, FBI and
intelligence sources said. They were. Did the FBI leak this classified intelligence to the news media? Isn't that a question President
Trump and Congress should be posing? If nothing else, McCabe and his FBI secret council are certainly now suspects of who possibly
leaked the intelligence. Seems that a number of polygraphs should be in order.
Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said,
though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents
have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform
of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to
understand why.
As far as waging political coups go: So far, so good. The FBI's secret plan to ruin Flynn worked. And fast. Flynn is long gone.
Now they can focus on ruining President Trump. After all, Isn't that the role of the FBI? Tampering with the president of the United
States and his inner circle, neither of whom have broken any laws?
It turns out, however, the FBI isn't very good at the spy game. McCabe's dictatorial tone ruffled a number of agents at FBI headquarters
who still believe the mission of the bureau is not to wage clandestine warfare against the sitting president and his administration.
McCabe and Comey did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn could not be reached for comment.
This isn't McCabe's first rodeo in the cross-hairs of controversy at the FBI where he is outranked only by Comey. In fact, McCabe
garnered problematic headlines during the 2016 presidential election.
Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in
campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to
records and interviews obtained by True Pundit.
Dr. Jill McCabe was a Virginia state senate candidate in 2015. Longtime Clinton family consigliere and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,
sent her approximately $675,000 to fund the Democrat hopeful's campaign coffers. Dr. McCabe, a physician, is married to the FBI deputy
director. Mrs. McCabe is a registered Democrat. FBI agents who work with McCabe say he and his wife were both staunch Hillary Clinton
supporters.
According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing
room.
"McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment,"
a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards
for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're
more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not."
Gov. McAuliffe has been an important Clinton family insider for decades. During Bill Clinton's presidential candidacy and subsequent
reelection, McAuliffe often spearheaded investigations into Clinton critics and helped silence women who alleged Bill Clinton harassed
or sexually assaulted them, sources said.
Ironically, McAuliffe is currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged campaign-related finance infractions.
McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation.
No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents
to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost
the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy
Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor
of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation.
Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were
highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation.
FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau.
Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. He felt it was simpler
to quietly step aside, walk away instead of fight to keep the investigation on its proper track. Giacalone was a true heavyweight
agent at FBI. In fact, he likely should have been running the entire show. His pedigree included running and creating FBI divisions
in New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and even serving as deputy commander in the Iraqi theater of operations. But in the
midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016.
The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as
the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority
of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for
a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges.
Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan
agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach
and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime
the FBI is tasked with investigating.
Just like it "investigated" $700,000 in donations from the Clinton family to the wife of the FBI's deputy director who, during
the exact time frame was tasked with overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton. She ultimately was never charged with any crime
and McCabe received a FBI promotion. Does anyone have the phone number for the FBI's public corruption unit? Or does that line ring
directly to McCabe and Comey?
We would normally demand a federal investigation into such allegations of collusion. But who would conduct it, the FBI?
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the
first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a
calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which
clearly show that the Empire is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House,
Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if
Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now
inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton
against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up
tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 -- so as to swing the election to Trump (by
giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with
Russia?
The man who says he acted as a "go-between" last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the
controversial "dossier" containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is
speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate
its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.
"My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and
assistants that such a dossier existed," Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive
interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.
Fox News spoke to Wood at the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia,
Canada. As Britain's ambassador to Moscow from 1995-2000, Wood witnessed the end of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin and the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Just after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, Arizona GOP Sen. McCain spoke
at the same security conference. Wood says he was instructed -- by former British spy
Christopher Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man,"
about the unverified document.
Wood insists that he's never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague
prepared. It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In August 2016, "[Steele] came to me to tell me what was in it, and why it was important,"
Wood said. "He made it very clear yes, it was raw intelligence, but it needed putting into
proper context before you could judge it fully."
August 2016 is a critical period, just after the FBI opened the Russia meddling probe, and
after then-director James Comey recommended against prosecution for Clinton's mishandling of
classified information.
Wood said Steele had "already been in contact with the FBI" at the time.
"He said there was corroborating evidence in the United States, from which I assumed he
was working with an American company," Wood said.
British court records reviewed by Fox News as well as U.S. congressional testimony
revealed that Steele was directed and paid at least $168,000 by Fusion GPS founder Glenn
Simpson to push the research that fall to five American media outlets. According to British
court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post (twice),
CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice).
"Each of these interviews was conducted in person and with a member of Fusion also
present," according to the records associated with separate civil litigation against Steele
and Fusion GPS.
Wood said he'd heard of Fusion GPS, as the group Steele was working with, but had "never
heard of Mr. Simpson."
Three weeks after Trump won the presidential election, at the Canadian security
conference, the details were finalized for the dossier hand-off to McCain.
Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer
David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.
British court records state McCain ordered Kramer to get a personal briefing from Steele
in Surrey, just outside of London, and then return to Washington, D.C., where Fusion GPS
would provide McCain with hard copies.
In January, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy
from Steele.
Of note, listed in the official program for the 2016 November Canadian conference as a
participant was Rinat Akhmetshin -- the same Russian lobbyist who was at Trump Tower five
months earlier in June for a highly scrutinized meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others.
The senator's office noted to Fox News that McCain said in January 2017 he had no contact
with Akhmetshin. "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made
public. Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy,
I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my
contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
It is not known whether Akhmetshin had any contact with Kramer. Fusion GPS and Kramer did
not respond to requests for comment from Fox News.
Doesn't this make McCain guilty of offenses under the Logan act; the very offense that was
commonly levelled against Trump and called "collusion" in the press.
This confirms that Congressional Senators and Congressmen should operate under time limits
as well as be harshly punished for treasonous activity, meaning they are policed.
Exactly, as this will go on forever just to escape any scandal and other involvements of a
dubious nature. The US "justice" system is obviously primitive enough to allow this kind of
nonsense to continue.
"According to British court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The
Washington Post (twice), CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice)."
Right there are your "fake news" propaganda sources. What do you want to bet they are all
Jewish owned...yet Trump kisses judea'sass?
Well, at the least it makes John McCain a total stooge who let his bias against Trump
override his ability to use good judgement, which by the way is already lacking.
"... Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the President's campaign associates, to convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump campaign official Carter Page. ..."
"... Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this 'cesspool'.... ..."
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson spoke with US House investigators in a closed-door
meeting Tuesday, and confirmed what many in the non-establishment media already knew that
Fusion GPS never verified the Dossier claims before passing on the ridiculous document to the
corrupt establishment press.
According to
The Gateway Pundit , Herridge also said that her source told her that Glenn Simpson was
"upset" when Comey re-opened Hillary's email investigation at the end of October and wanted to
push back.
And he did
On October 31st, 2016 with just days to go until election day, David Corn of Mother Jones broke the story of a 'veteran spy' who gave the FBI information on
Trump's alleged connections to Russia. Christopher Steele, British spy and author of the
garbage dossier was not named in this Mother Jones report. Only hints of the dossier were
published; the salacious claims were omitted.
Hillary Clinton was disappointed the entire dossier hadn't been published in full prior to
the election. After all, she paid millions of dollars for the smear document.
The author of the dossier, Christopher Steele was also desperate to get the salacious
document out to the public. He told David Corn of
Mother Jones, "The story has to come out."
A week later, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were in utter shock when Trump won the
presidential election. Desperate to delegitimatize him,
BuzzFeed published the entire dossier on January 10th, right before the inauguration.
According to the Washington Post , the FBI agreed to pay the British Spy who
compiled the garbage dossier after the election to continue to dig up dirt on Trump and
Russia.
The FBI pulled out of this arrangement once the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele
was publicly identified in media reports.
Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the
President's campaign associates, to
convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump
campaign official Carter Page.
Totally BUSTED ! Scam artists that they are. So how much money is the wild goose chase
going to cost American taxpayers. When are they going to start indicting some of these
scumbags, this is getting old already.
Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how
far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this
'cesspool'....
How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
The Watergate Break-In
June 16, 1972: In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., seven men gathered to
finalize their plans to break in to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters,
located on the sixth floor of one of the Watergate complex's six buildings. One of these men,
G. Gordon Liddy , was a former FBI agent. Another, E. Howard Hunt , had retired from the CIA.
James McCord would handle the bugging, Bernard Barker would photograph documents, and Virgilio
Gonzalez would pick the locks. The remaining two, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, would
serve as lookouts. Several of these men were Cuban exiles who had met Hunt through their
participation in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961.
"... . . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . . 30 ..."
During his later years at the CIA, Helms witnessed the Agency and the whole enterprise of
intelligence fall into disrepute as Congress and the public subjected US foreign policy to
unprecedented criticism. Helms took the occasion of his only public speech as DCI to affirm
that "the nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men devoted to her
service."
28 By the end of his directorship, however, years of political protest, social
upheaval, and revelations of government incompetence and wrongdoing had depleted much of that
faith. Helms became a (not entirely blameless) casualty of that rapid and sweeping change in
the American people's sense of what their government should and should not do. He had once said
that Americans "want an effective, strong intelligence operation. They just don't want to hear
too much about it."
29 But now prominent voices demanded of the CIA far more accountability than Helms
was used to or thought appropriate. As he wrote in this journal in 1967:
. . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public
critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite
another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it
painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on
our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . .
30
Helms declined a presidential request to submit his resignation after the 1972 elections,
not wanting to set a precedent that he thought would politicize the position of DCI. After he
was forced out in 1973 -- he believed that Nixon was mad at him for refusing to use the CIA in
the Watergate cover up -- Helms spent several years coping with controversies ensuing in part
from some of his acts of omission and commission while at the Agency. He became a lightning rod
for criticism of the CIA during its "time of troubles" in the mid-1970s. He was called back
many times from his ambassadorial post in Tehran to testify before investigatory bodies about
assassination plots, domestic operations, drug testing, the destruction of records, and other
activities of dubious legality and ethicality known collectively as the "Family Jewels." He
responded to inquiries about them cautiously, sometimes testily, as he tried to walk the
increasingly fuzzy line between discretion and disclosure.
Helms ran into legal troubles resulting from his judgment about when and when not to reveal
secrets. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after leaving the
Agency, he denied that the CIA had tried to influence the outcome of the Chilean presidential
election in 1970. Helms described his quandary this way: "If I was to live up to my oath and
fulfill my statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure, I could not reveal covert operations to people unauthorized to learn
about them."
31 He eventually pleaded no contest to charges of not testifying "fully, completely
and accurately" to the committee. His statement to the federal judge who was about to sentence
him, although addressed to the immediate situation, could also summarize nearly his whole
experience as DCI: "I was simply trying to find my way through a difficult situation in which I
found myself
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily
footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son,
George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W.
(3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this second installment, please go
here to read the first installment.
***********
Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest? ascribed to Henry II
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary -- or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.
But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.
Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style
Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon's involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:
It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup.
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.
Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Notwithstanding Nixon's initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more -- and this gave him much
to ponder.
On June 23, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.
HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA .
Nixon's response would show that he had already realized this:
NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation, and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves This will open the whole Bay of Pigs thing
Of course, it is important to remember that Nixon knew every word he
uttered was being recorded. Like his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson,
he had decided to install a taping system so that he could maintain a record
of his administration. He was, in a way, dictating a file memo for future historians.
But that doesn't make everything he said untrue. While Nixon undoubtedly
spun some things, he still had to communicate with his subordinates,
and the tape was rolling while he was trying to run the country. Those were
actual meetings and real conversations, tape or no tape. And though the
result was 3,700 hours of White House tape recordings, Nixon evinced
merely sporadic consciousness of the fact that the tape was rolling. Only after
his counsel John Dean defected to the prosecutors did Nixon appear to
be tailoring his words.
Nixon's memoirs, combined with the tape of June 23, make clear that
Nixon recognized certain things about the implementation of the burglary.
The caper was carried out by pros, yet paradoxically was amateurish, easily
detected -- an instigation of the crime more easily pinned on someone else.
A break-in at Democratic Party headquarters: On whom would that be
blamed? Well, who was running against a Democrat for reelection that
fall? Why, Richard Nixon of course. Nixon, who frequently exhibited a grim
and self-pitying awareness of how he generally was portrayed, might have
grasped how this would play out publicly. Dick Nixon: ruthless, paranoid,
vengeful -- Tricky Dick. Wouldn't this burglary be just the kind of thing that
that Dick Nixon -- the "liberal media's" version of him -- would do? Nixon's
opponent, George McGovern, made this charge repeatedly during the 1972
campaign.
Though Nixon would sweep the election, it would become increasingly
apparent to him that, where Watergate was concerned, the jury was stacked.
The path was set. Someone had him in a corner.
But who?
Many people, including those within Nixon's own base of support, were
not happy with him -- even from early in his administration. As Haldeman
noted in his diary, one month after the inauguration in 1969:
Also got cranking on the political problem. [President's] obviously concerned about reports (especially Buchanan's) that conservatives and the South are unhappy. Also he's annoyed by constant right- wing bitching, with never a positive alternative. Ordered me to assemble a political group and really hit them to start defending us, including Buchanan . . . [and political specialist Harry] Dent.
There would be growing anger in the Pentagon about Nixon and Kissinger's
secret attempts to secure agreements with China and the Soviet Union without
consulting the military. And there were the oilmen, who found Nixon
wasn't solid enough on their most basic concerns, such as the oil depletion
allowance and oil import quotas.
As for the burglary crew, Nixon recognized them instantly, because he
knew what they represented. While serving as vice president, Nixon had
overseen some covert operations and served as the "action officer" for the
planning of the Bay of Pigs, of which these men were hard-boiled veterans.
They had been out to overthrow Fidel Castro, and if possible, to kill him.
Nixon had another problem. These pros were connected to the CIA, and
as we shall see, Nixon was not getting along well with the agency.
One of the main reasons we fundamentally misunderstand Watergate is
that the guardians of the historical record focused only on selected parts of
Nixon's taped conversations, out of context. Consider a widely cited portion
of a June 23 meeting tape, which would become known forever as the
"smoking gun" conversation:
HALDEMAN: The way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA deputy director Vernon] Walters call [FBI interim director] Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." NIXON: Um hum.
Short excerpts like this seem especially damning. This one sounds right
off the bat like a cover-up - Nixon using the CIA to suppress an FBI investigation
into the break-in.
But these utterances take on a different meaning when considered with
other, less publicized parts of the same conversation. A prime example:
Haldeman went on to tell Nixon that Pat Gray, the acting FBI director, had
called CIA director Richard Helms and said, "I think we've run right into
the middle of a CIA covert operation."
Although the first excerpt above sounds like a discussion of a cover-up,
when we consider the information about the CIA involvement, it begins to
seem as if Nixon is not colluding. He may well have been refusing to take the
rap for something he had not authorized -- and certainly not for something
that smelled so blatantly like a trap. Nixon would have understood that if the
FBI were to conduct a full investigation and conclude that the break-in was indeed
an illegal operation of the CIA, it would all be blamed squarely on the
man who supposedly had ultimate authority over both agencies -- him. And
doubly so, since the burglars and their supervisors were tied not just
to the CIA but also directly back to Nixon's reelection committee and the
White House itself.
Yet, however concerned Nixon certainly must have been at this moment,
he played it cool. He concurred with the advice that his chief of staff was
passing along from the counsel John Dean, which was to press the CIA to
clean up its own mess.
If the CIA was involved, then the agency would have to ask the FBI to
back off. The CIA itself would have to invoke its perennial escape clause --
say that national security was at stake.
This must have sounded to Nixon like the best way to deal with a vexing
and shadowy situation. He had no way of knowing that, two years later, his
conversation with Haldeman would be publicly revealed and construed as
that of a man in control of a plot, rather than the target of one.
Sniffing Around the Bay of Pigs
How could Nixon have so quickly gotten a fix on the Watergate crew? He
might have recognized that the involvement of this particular group of
Cubans, together with E. Howard Hunt -- and the evidence tying them back
to the White House -- was in part a message to him. One of the group leaders,
G. Gordon Liddy, would even refer to the team as a bunch of "professional
killers." Indeed
, several of this Bay of Pigs circle had gone to Vietnam
to participate in the assassination-oriented Phoenix Program; as noted in
chapter 7, Poppy Bush and his colleague, CIA operative Thomas Devine,
had been in Vietnam at the peak of Phoenix, and Bush had ties to at least
some from this émigré group.
So Nixon recognized this tough gang, but this time, they weren't focused on
Fidel Castro; they were focused on Dick Nixon.
Hunt was a familiar figure from the CIA old guard. A near contemporary of
Poppy Bush's at Yale , Hunt had, as noted in earlier
chapters, gone on to star in
numerous agency foreign coup operations, including in Guatemala. He had
worked closely with Cuban émigrés and had been in sensitive positions at the
time John F. Kennedy was murdered and Lee Harvey Oswald named the lone
assassin. Moreover, Hunt had been a staunch loyalist of Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had ousted over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; he allegedly even
collaborated on Dulles's 1963 book, The Craft of Intelligence. Hunt was one
connected fellow, and his presence in an operation of this sort, particularly with
veterans of the Cuba invasion, was not something to pass over lightly.
Nixon had further basis for viewing the events of Watergate with special
trepidation. From the moment he entered office until the day, five and a half
years later, when he was forced to resign, Nixon and the CIA had been at
war. Over what? Over records dating back to the Kennedy administration
and even earlier.
Nixon had many reasons to be interested in the events of the early 1960s.
As noted, he had been the "action officer" for the planning of the Bay of Pigs
and the attempt to overthrow Castro. But even more interestingly, Nixon had,
by coincidence, been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and had left the city
just hours before the man he barely lost to in 1960 had been gunned down.
Five years after the Kennedy assassination, as Richard Nixon himself assumed
the presidency, one of his first and keenest instincts was to try to learn more
about these monumental events of the past decade.
Both of Nixon's chief aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, noted
in their memoirs that the president seemed obsessed with what he called
the "Bay of Pigs thing." Both were convinced that when Nixon used the
phrase, it was shorthand for something bigger and more disturbing. Nixon
did not tell even those closest to him what he meant.
When Nixon referred to the Bay of Pigs, he could certainly have been using
it as a euphemism, because any way one thought about it, it spelled
trouble. The Bay of Pigs invasion itself had been a kind of setup of another
president. JFK had made clear that he would not allow U.S. military forces
to be used against Castro. When the invasion by U.S.-backed Cuban exiles
failed, the CIA and the U.S. military hoped this would force Kennedy to
launch an all-out invasion. Instead, he balked, and blamed Dulles and his
associates for the botched enterprise, and, to their astonishment, forced
them out of the agency. As noted in chapter 4, these were the roots of the hatred
felt by Hunt, Dulles, and the Bush family toward Kennedy.
Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy's battle with powerful internal elements
had preceded JFK's demise. After all, governments everywhere have
historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have
the chief of state in its gun sights -- and that it certainly possesses the ability
to act.
Moreover, Richard Nixon was a curious fellow. Within days of taking
office in 1969, Nixon had begun conducting an investigation of his own regarding
the turbulent and little-understood days leading up to the end of the
Kennedy administration. He had ordered Ehrlichman, the White House
counsel, to instruct CIA director Helms to hand over the relevant files, which
surely amounted to thousands and thousands of documents. Six months
later, Ehrlichman confided to Haldeman that the agency had failed to produce
any of the files.
"Those bastards in Langley are holding back something," a frustrated
Ehrlichman told Haldeman. "They just dig their heels in and say the President
can't have it. Period. Imagine that. The Commander-in-Chief wants to
see a document and the spooks say he can't have it . . . From the way they're
protecting it, it must be pure dynamite."
Nixon himself then summoned Helms, who also refused to help. Helms
would later recall that Nixon "asked me for some information about the Bay
of Pigs and I think about the Diem episode in Vietnam and maybe something
about Trujillo in the Dominican Republic" -- all events involving the
violent removal of foreign heads of state.
Fidel Castro had managed to survive not only the Bay of Pigs but also multiple
later assassination attempts. Diem and Trujillo were not so fortunate.
And President Kennedy, who made a lot of Cuban enemies after the botched
Bay of Pigs operations, had also succumbed to an assassin's bullet. This was a
legacy that might well seize the attention of one of Kennedy's successors.
The explosiveness of the mysterious "Bay of Pigs thing" became abundantly
apparent on June 23, 1972, the day Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell
CIA director Helms to rein in the FBI's Watergate investigation. Recalled
Haldeman:
Then I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs might be blown . . ."
Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." . . . I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?
Nixon made clear to his top aides that he was not only obsessed with the
CIA's murky past, but also its present. He seemed downright paranoid about
the agency, periodically suggesting to his aides that covert operatives lurked
everywhere. And indeed, as we shall see, they did.
In all likelihood, the practice of filling the White House with intelligence
operatives was not limited to the Nixon administration, but an ongoing effort.
To the intelligence community, the White House was no different than
other civil institutions it actively penetrated. Presidents were viewed less as
elected leaders to be served than as temporary occupants to be closely monitored,
subtly guided, and where necessary, given a shove.
If the CIA was in fact trying to implicate Nixon in Watergate (and, as we
shall see, in other illegal and troubling covert operations), the goal might
have been to create the impression that the agency was joined at the hip
with Nixon in all things. Then, if Nixon were to pursue the CIA's possible
role in the assassination of Kennedy, the agency could simply claim that
Nixon himself knew about these illegal acts, or was somehow complicit in
them.
A Little Exposure Never Hurts
Something had been gnawing at Nixon since November 22, 1963. Why had
he ended up in Dallas the very day the man who he believed had stolen the
presidency from him was shot? Nixon had been asked to go there just a few
weeks before, for the rather banal purpose of an appearance at a Pepsi-Cola
corporate meeting -- coinciding with a national soda pop bottlers' convention.
The potential implications could not have been lost on this most shrewd and
suspicious man.
Nixon was no shrinking violet in Dallas. He called a press conference in
his hotel suite on November 21, the day before Kennedy's murder, criticizing
Kennedy's policies on civil rights and foreign relations but also urging
Texans to show courtesy to the president during his visit.
More significantly, he declared his belief that Kennedy was going to replace
Vice President Johnson with a new running mate in 1964. This was
an especially incendiary thing to say, since the whole reason for Kennedy's
visit was to cement his links to Texas Democrats, help bridge a gap between
the populist and conservative wings of the state party, and highlight his partnership
with Johnson. Nixon's comment was hot enough that it gained a place in the
early edition of the November 22 Dallas Morning News, under the headline
"Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson."
This was likely to get the attention of Johnson, who would be in the motorcade
that day -- and of conservatives generally, the bottlers included, whom Johnson
had addressed as keynote speaker at their convention earlier in the week.
Nixon had finished his business and left the city by 9:05 on the morning
of the twenty-second, several hours before Kennedy was shot. He learned
of the event on his arrival back in New York City. Like most people, he no
doubt was shocked and perhaps a bit alarmed. Many people, Nixon included,
believed that Kennedy had stolen the presidential election in 1960 by fixing
vote counts in Texas and Illinois.
At the very least, the appearance of Nixon's November 21 press conference
remarks in the newspaper just hours before Kennedy's death was a
stark reminder of the large and diverse group of enemies, in and out of politics,
that JFK had accumulated.
Certainly, Nixon himself was sensitive to the notion that his appearance
in Dallas had somehow contributed to Kennedy's bloody fate. According to
one account, Nixon learned of the assassination while in a taxi cab en route
from the airport. He claimed at the time and in his memoirs that he was
calm, but his adviser Stephen Hess remembered it differently. Hess was
the
first person in Nixon's circle to see him that day in New York, and he recalled
that "his reaction appeared to me to be, 'There but for the Grace of
God go I.' He was very shaken."
As Hess later told political reporter Jules Witcover: "He had the morning
paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a
press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with
a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He
tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it . . . It was his way of
saying, 'Look, I didn't fuel this thing.' "
Nixon's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, along with LBJ's --
and Poppy Bush's quieter presence on the periphery -- created a rather remarkable
situation. Three future presidents of the United States were all present in a
single American city on the day when their predecessor was assassinated
there. Within days, a fourth -- Gerald Ford -- would be asked by LBJ to join
the Warren Commission investigating the event.
Bottled Up
Nixon's unfortunate timing resulted from a series of events that seem, in retrospect,
almost to have benefited from a guiding hand. In mid-1963, friends
had persuaded him that his long-term prospects required a move from California,
where he had lost the 1962 race for the governorship. Now that he
was a two-time loser, Nixon's best hope, they counseled, was to find a position
in New York that would pay him handsomely, and let him politick and
keep himself in the public eye. His friend Donald Kendall, the longtime head
of Pepsi's international operations, offered to make him chairman of the
international division. But the consensus was that a law firm job would suit
him better, so he joined the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
Kendall sweetened the deal by throwing the law firm Pepsi's lucrative legal
business. In September, Kendall himself was promoted to head the entire
Pepsi company.
On November 1, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, a corrupt
anti-Communist, was overthrown and assassinated. On November 7, Nixon
wrote to GOP strategist Robert Humphreys, expressing outrage over Diem's
death and blaming the Kennedy administration. "Our heavy-handed complicity
in his murder can only have the effect of striking terror in the hearts
of leaders of other nations who presumably are our friends."
Historians disagree on what exactly Kennedy knew about Diem's death,
though Kennedy registered shock at the news -- just as he had when Patrice
Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, was assassinated in 1961.
Kennedy realized that he could be blamed. Later on, it would be established
by the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA had been attempting to
kill Lumumba.
Also of interest is a little-noticed comment made by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1966, caught by his own recording equipment, in which he
declared about Diem: "We killed him. We all got together and got a god-
damn bunch of thugs and assassinated him." It is not clear whom he
meant by "we."
Kendall asked Nixon to accompany him to Dallas for the Pepsi corporate
gathering coinciding with the bottlers' convention in late November. The
convention was an important annual event for Pepsi, and so would have
been on Kendall's schedule for a while, though the necessity of Nixon's
presence is less apparent. And with LBJ as keynote speaker, and appearances
by Miss USA, Yogi Berra, and Joan Crawford, Nixon, the two-time loser, did
not even appear at the convention.
For his part, Nixon seems to have agreed to go because it was an opportunity
to share the limelight surrounding Kennedy's visit. And since Nixon was
traveling as a representative of Pepsi, and flying on its corporate plane --
something noted in the news coverage -- Kendall was getting double duty out
of Nixon's play for media attention. That was something Kendall understood
well.
Donald Kendall was, like Nixon and Poppy Bush, a World War II Navy
vet who had served in the Pacific. But instead of politics, he had gone into
the business world, joining the Pepsi- Cola company and rising quickly
through the ranks. Like Nixon and Bush, he was enormously ambitious.
And in his oversight of Pepsi operations abroad, he also shared something
else with them: a deep concern about Communist encroachment -- which
was just about everywhere. Plus Kendall had a passion for covert operations.
Kendall's particular reason for being interested in Cuba was sugar, for
many years a key ingredient of Pepsi-Cola. Cuba was the world's leading
supplier; and Castro's expropriations, and the resulting U.S. embargo, had
caused chaos in the soft drink industry. (It also had affected the fortunes of
Wall Street firms such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which, as noted in
chapter 3, had extensive sugar holdings on the island.)
Indeed, articles from the Dallas papers anticipating the bottlers' convention
talked openly about all these problems with Cuba. One of the articles, titled
"Little Relief Seen for Sugar Problem," explains the pressure
felt by soft drink
bottlers in light of a crisis concerning high sugar prices. The president of a major
New York-based sugar company is quoted explaining why the crisis had
not yet been averted: "The government probably thought the Castro regime
might be eliminated."
It is in this context that we consider a June 1963 letter from Nixon to
Kendall, then still running Pepsi's foreign operations. A researcher working
for me found it in Nixon's presidential library archives; it appears to be previously
unpublished.
Dear Don: In view of our discussion yesterday morning with regard to Cuba, I thought you might like to see a copy of the speech I made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in which I directed remarks toward this problem. When I return from Europe I am looking forward to having a chance to get a further fill-in with regard to your experiences on the Bay of Pigs incident.
Dick
The letter rings a little odd. Nixon and Kendall were close, and more than
two years had passed since the Bay of Pigs; it was unlikely that this would be
the first chance Nixon got to discuss the subject with his friend. Furthermore,
Kendall is not known to have had any "experiences" in relation to the invasion.
In a 2008 interview, Kendall, by then eighty-seven years old but still maintaining
an office at Pepsi and seeming vigorous, said that he could not recall the letter
nor provide an explanation for it.
Given this, the use of the phrase in the letter appears to be some form of
euphemism between friends, a sort of discreet wink. Nixon, the former
coordinator of covert operations under Ike, clearly knew that Kendall was
more than a soda pop man. Nixon's experiences representing Pepsi instilled
in him a lasting -- and not altogether favorable -- impression of what he
acidly termed "the sugar lobby." Haldeman got the message that treading
carefully was wise. Some of his notes are intriguing in this respect. He
urges special counsel Charles Colson:
0900 Cols[on] -- re idea of getting pol. Commitments -- Sugar people are richest & most ruthless before we commit -- shld put screws on & get quid pro quo ie Fl[anigan] -- always go to Sugar lobby or oil etc. before we give them anything
The CIA also knew the soft drink industry well. The agency used bottling
plants, including those run by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other companies, for
both cover and intelligence. Moreover, the local bottling franchises tended
to be given to crucial figures in each country, with ties to the military and
the ruling elites. It was not just bottlers that played such a role; there were
marketing monopolies for all kinds of products, from cars to sewing machines,
given out on recommendations of the CIA.
Kendall was a close friend of the Bush family and a fellow resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1988, he would serve in the crucial position of
finance chairman for Poppy Bush's successful run for the presidency. His
support for the Bushes included donating to George W. Bush's 1978 Midland
congressional campaign.
And as noted by the New York Times , Kendall was
identified with the successful
effort to overthrow the elected democratic socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.
As the Times would report in July 1976:
One of Mr. Kendall's great passions is international trade, and his interest in foreign affairs won him a footnote in a 1975 interim report of a Senate Select Committee. The report was called "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," and discussed in part the assassination of Salvador Allende Gossens, the Marxist Chilean president who was killed in 1973. The report stated that Mr. Kendall had requested in 1970 that Augustin Edwards, who was publisher of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, as well as a Pepsi bottler in Chile, meet with high Nixon Administration officials to report on the political situation in Chile. (Pepsi bottling operations were later expropriated by the regime.) That meeting, which included Mr. Kendall, Mr. Edwards, Henry Kissinger and John N. Mitchell, was indeed held, and later the same day, Mr. Nixon met with Dr. Kissinger and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Helms later testified that President Nixon had ordered at the follow-up meeting that Chile was to be saved from Allende "and he didn't care much how." Mr. Kendall says he sees nothing sinister, or for that matter even controversial, in his action.
Like many on the right, quite a few bottlers regarded the Kennedy administration's
policy toward Castro's Cuba as dangerously soft. Declassified FBI
files show that, after Kennedy's death, one man contacted the FBI regarding
threatening remarks that his brother, a bottler, had made in reference to the
president. Another convention attendee was identified in FBI reports as
having had a drink with Jack Ruby, the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, on
the night of November 21.
Though unhappy with Kennedy, these independent businessmen clearly
wanted to hear what Johnson had to say, which is why the Texas-born vice
president was the convention's keynote speaker.
By some estimates, the convention included close to eight thousand
bottlers -- so many, in fact, that it had taken over Dallas's largest venue, the
new Market Hall. This meant that when Kennedy's trip planners determined
where he would speak on November 22, one of the very few sufficiently large
and central venues had long since been taken. The Dallas Trade Mart thereby
became the most likely location for Kennedy's speech, with the route through
downtown to the Trade Mart, past the Texas School Book Depository, as the
most likely for the presidential motorcade.
In fact, the Trade Mart was secured by that most unlikely group of "friends"
of JFK, the Dallas Citizens Council, whose members' views were described by
the New York Times as "very conservative and range rightward." The council
had cosponsored the luncheon as a putative peace offering to JFK. Indeed, it
seems that JFK's itinerary in Dallas was circumscribed by the bottlers and the
Citizens Council.
The mere fact that eight thousand strangers had poured into Dallas in
the days before JFK's arrival should presumably have been of interest, yet
the Warren Commission ignored the event altogether.
Another interesting thing about the bottlers' convention is that the Army
Reserves volunteered to help facilitate an unusual extracurricular activity.
As noted in chapters 6 and 7, Poppy Bush's friend Jack Crichton was head of
a local Army Intelligence unit. Associates of Crichton's who were involved
with the Army Reserves had managed to get into the pilot car of Kennedy's
procession, with one as the driver. Crichton would also provide the interpreter
for Marina Oswald after her husband's arrest as the prime suspect in
Kennedy's murder.
According to a short item in the Dallas Morning News the day before
Kennedy was shot, members of the Dallas unit of the 90th Artillery Division
of the Army Reserve would be providing trucks and drivers to transport two
hundred orphans to a livestock arena for a rodeo sponsored by the bottlers'
group. This was to take place at nine P.M. on the night before Kennedy's arrival.
The arena was at Fair Park, near the site under which Crichton's Dallas
Civil Defense maintained its underground emergency bunker and communications
facility. Putting aside the Dickensian aspect of moving orphans in
Army trucks within an affluent American city, this raises some questions
about the reason for this odd maneuver. Whatever the true purpose of a small
platoon of Army vehicles being permitted to move about Dallas on purportedly
unrelated civilian business as the president's arrival was imminent, it appears
investigators never considered this incident worthy of a closer look.
Cumulatively, the bottlers' convention was responsible for a number of
curious circumstances that may be said to have some relevance to the
events surrounding Kennedy's death:
• The convention brought Nixon to Dallas.
• It brought eight thousand strangers to Dallas.
• It sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the
assassination.
• Its early reservation of one large venue helped determine Kennedy's
ultimate destination and thus the motorcade route.
In any event, as Nixon's adviser Stephen Hess has recounted, the former
vice president emerged deeply shaken about the timing of his Dallas visit. It
served to remind him that if he ever occupied the Oval Office, he too could
be vulnerable and targeted -- by the very same players. And his presence in
this incriminating spot was suggestive of wheels within wheels, to which he
of all people would have been alert. Were these intrigues what fueled President
Nixon's obsession with the CIA and its cloak-and-dagger activities in
the Kennedy era? This little-noted tug-of-war, a struggle over both current
policy and past history, would become an ongoing theme throughout Nixon's
term in office.
The Loyalist in Chief
At one time, Poppy Bush had worked hard to position himself as Richard
Nixon's most loyal servant. An example appeared in a 1971 profile of Poppy
in his role as Nixon's United Nations ambassador. Under the banner headline
"Bush Working Overtime," the Dallas Morning News of September 19,
1971, portrayed the ambassador as poised at the center of world affairs.
Leaning forward at his desk, a large globe next to him, his lean face bearing
a look of calm intensity, George H. W. Bush looked almost presidential.
The reporter for the Texas paper picked up on that. But he was equally
struck by Poppy's devotion to the sitting president. Ambassador Bush, he
noted, "is loyal -- some say to a fault -- to President Nixon, and frequently
quotes him in conversation."
It was the image Poppy wanted to convey. Even when the reporter asked
for his own views, he quickly deferred. "I like to think of myself as a pragmatist,
but I have learned to defy being labeled," Bush said. "What I can say
is that I am a strong supporter of the President."
Of course, when someone defies being labeled, it gives him extraordinary
flexibility to move in different circles, to collect information, to spin on
a dime -- in short, to behave a lot like a covert intelligence officer.
The image of Poppy as the ultimate loyalist was one he would project for
three more years -- right up to the final days of the Nixon presidency. Not
even Nixon, who was famously distrustful, seemed to doubt it. After winning
the 1972 election in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon decided
to hedge his bets and clean house.
Planning to fire all but his most trusted aides, Nixon instructed Ehrlichman
to "eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for
our cause." This trust endured to the end of Nixon's presidency.
If indeed Bush was ever a Nixon loyalist, he certainly flipped the moment
the tide turned. This new stance emerged with the 1974 public release of
the transcript of Nixon's smoking gun conversation with Haldeman. As
Bush would record in his diary after Nixon's final cabinet meeting, the taped
conversation was irrefutable proof that "Nixon lied about his knowledge of
the cover-up of the Watergate scandal . . . I felt betrayed by his lie . . . I want
to make damn clear the lie is something we can't support."
Added Poppy: "This era of tawdry, shabby lack of morality has got to end."
This purported diary entry was most likely part of Poppy's perennial alibi
trail. It could have been Bush family tradecraft, something like Barbara's
Tyler, Texas, hair salon letter from November 22, 1963 -- always intended
for public view. Perhaps the most revealing part is the point at which Bush
summarizes the content of the smoking gun conversation. Poppy selectively
paraphrases a tiny part of that session, making it look as if Nixon had
ordered Haldeman (as Bush put it) to "block the FBI's investigation of the
Watergate break-in." This, Poppy asserted, "was proof [that] the President
had been involved, at least in the cover-up."
What Poppy omitted were two key things: that it was actually John Dean's
suggestion, not Nixon's, to block the investigation -- and that the CIA was at
the center of the intrigue to begin with.
Watergate's Unknown Prelude
The series of scandals that undid Richard Nixon's presidency are principally
identified with the 1972 burglary at the Democratic party offices in the Watergate
complex. But one could argue that Watergate -- and Nixon's
downfall -- really began in late 1969, during Nixon's first year in office, with
a phone call from a man almost no one today has heard of.
An independent oilman named John M. King dialed in to offer ideas for
improving Nixon's hold over Congress. Former White House staffer Jack
Gleason remembered the episode: "[King] called one day in '69 and said,
'You know, we have to start planning for 1970.' "
King's call suggested he was principally concerned about helping Nixon,
but in retrospect, there may have been more at stake. For one thing, King
was a member of the fraternity of independent oilmen who were growing
increasingly unhappy with Nixon. As we saw in the last chapter, the oil barons
were up in arms over threats to the oil depletion allowance, convinced that
Nixon was not solidly enough in their corner. But they had other gripes.
As Haldeman noted in a diary entry in December 1969: "Big problem persists
on oil import quotas. Have to make some decision, and can't win. If
we do what we should, and what the task force recommends, we'd apparently
end up losing at least a couple of senate seats, including George Bush in
Texas. Trying to figure out a way to duck the whole thing and shift it to Congress."
On a more personal level, King was mired in problems. The Denver-based
King had assembled a global empire with oil drilling and mining operations
in a hundred countries; he was known for a high-flying lifestyle and a gift
for leveraging connections. He even had two Apollo astronauts on
his board. In 1968, King had donated $750,000 to Nixon, and as a big donor,
his calls always got attention. But King was, according to a Time magazine
article of the period, something of a huckster. By late 1969, his empire
was on the verge of collapse. In the end, he would face jail and ruin.
Perhaps he was looking to secure intervention from the White House.
Perhaps it was just general business insurance. Or perhaps he was speaking
on behalf of his fellow in dependent oilmen.
In any event, King's pitch sounded like a good idea. He was proposing
that the Nixon White House funnel money from big GOP donors directly to
Senate and House candidates of its choice, rather than following the customary
method: letting the Republican Party determine the recipients. To do this
without provoking the wrath of the GOP establishment, King suggested
it be kept under wraps.
This idea appealed to the White House brass, and soon, a special operation
was being convened.
"As it matured, we had a couple of meetings with Ehrlichman and Haldeman
and went over some of the ground rules," said Gleason. Haldeman
brought the bare bones of the idea to Nixon, who thought it sounded fine.
Anything that involved secrecy and centralized White House control was
likely to find a receptive ear. Gleason's recollection is confirmed by a notation
in Haldeman's diary of December 11: "I had meeting with [Maurice]
Stans, Dent, and Gleason about setting up our own funding for backing the
good candidates in hot races. A little tricky to handle outside the RNC but
looks pretty good."
The White House political unit assigned the job of organizing and running
the new fund to its operative Gleason, an experienced GOP fundraiser.
Gleason was instructed by his boss, Harry Dent, to find an office for the operation.
When he suggested renting space in one of those prefurnished office
suites that come with secretarial and other services, he was told that this
would be too expensive.
That struck Gleason as odd, since it would not have cost much more and
would have been a pittance in relation to the large sums that would be
raised. But he followed his orders and rented something cheaper and more
discreet. Dent directed him to a townhouse on Nineteenth Street, in a residential
area near Dupont Circle. The space was not just in a townhouse but
in the basement of a townhouse. And not only that, it was in the back of the
basement. Reporters would later describe it as a "townhouse basement back
room" -- an arrangement guaranteed to raise eyebrows if ever discovered.
The way in which the funds were to be handled also struck Gleason as
unnecessarily complicated, and even furtive. While donors could simply --
and legally -- have written a single check to each candidate's campaign committee,
they were instructed instead to break up their donations into a number of
smaller checks. The checks were then routed through the townhouse,
where Gleason would pick them up and deposit them in a "Jack
Gleason, Agent" account at American Security and Trust Bank. Gleason
then would convert the amounts into cashier's checks and send them on to
the respective campaign committees, often further breaking each donation
up into smaller ones and spreading them over more than one campaign
committee of each candidate.
The ostensible reason for these complex arrangements was to enable the
White House to control the money. The actual effect, however, was to create
the impression of something illicit, such as a money-laundering operation
aimed at hiding the identities of the donors.
Somewhere along the way Gleason began to detect an odor stronger than
that of quotidian campaign operations. What seemed suspect to him was
not that Nixon would help Republican candidates -- that was how things
worked. What bothered him were the operational details. Many seemed
positively harebrained, the kind of things with which no president should be
associated. But Gleason just figured that Richard Nixon, or his subordinates,
had a blind spot when it came to appearances of impropriety.
Deep-Sixing Nixon
Late in the election season, Gleason's superiors told him to add a new component
to the Townhouse Operation. Gleason found this new development
particularly disturbing. It was called the "Sixes Project." Launched in October
1970, when the midterm elections were almost over, it provided an extra
personal donation of six thousand dollars to each of thirteen Senate
candidates -- in cash.
Gleason's job was simple enough: get on a plane, fly out to meet each of
the candidates, and personally hand over an envelope of cash. He was to add
a personal message: "Here's a gift from Dick and Pat." And he was to keep
meticulous receipts, noting who received the cash and the date of the transaction.
Gleason was not happy about his role as dispenser of envelopes full of
cash. As he told me in a 2008 interview,
Of all the silly things I've ever been asked to do in this life, traveling around with six thousand dollars to give the guy and say, "This is from Dick and Pat," was colossally bad . . . Now you crank me up, leave a paper trail a mile long and a mile wide of flight tickets, hotel reservations, rental cars, everything, and have me traipsing all over the country giving these guys six thousand dollars in cash, [and besides], the six thousand doesn't matter, doesn't get you anywhere. If we give you a quarter of a million, what's another six thousand? . . . The six thousand dollars itself was a disconnect, because everything else was largely done to keep the whole thing under wraps.
In those days, the campaign finance laws, most of which were at the state
level, were limited and rarely enforced. Reporting requirements were thin,
but those candidates who wanted to abide by the law made sure to report
any cash they received to their respective campaign committees. That posed
a challenge for a candidate caught in a grueling nonstop schedule, who was
handed an envelope of cash. It would be easy enough to forget to report it,
whether deliberately or accidentally.
Even back in 1973, Gleason could come to only one conclusion. When
special prosecutors in the Watergate investigation later grilled him about
the Townhouse Operation, he told them as much. "The purpose of these
contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later
on." However, at that point Gleason assumed that the sponsors of the
blackmail were Nixon loyalists -- perhaps even authorized by the president
himself.
Alarmed at this arrangement, and cognizant that he might be generating
myriad campaign law violations, Gleason asked the White House for a legal
analysis. But despite multiple requests, he never got it. Finally, he asked for
a letter stating that nothing he was being asked to do was illegal. (That letter,
Gleason later explained, would somehow disappear before it could arrive at
the offices of the Watergate prosecutors.)
Since the six-thousand-dollar donations were ostensibly generated by
"Dick and Pat," one could easily surmise that Richard Nixon, or those under
his authority, were indeed out to get something on Republican candidates.
Once they took the cash, the recipients would have to do as he wanted, or
else risk exposure. As Assistant Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff wrote to
his boss: "It has been our guess that [the Nixon White House] hoped to gain
some leverage over these candidates by placing cash in their hands which
they might not report."
Had this become known, Nixon would have had trouble explaining it.
Few would have believed that such a scheme could have been run under
White House auspices without Nixon's approval. And yet that seems to have
been the case. In fact, Nixon's name rarely appears in the Townhouse files of
Watergate prosecutors -- for whom the evidence of Nixon's wrongdoing
would have been the ultimate prize.
Even the complex and calculating Charles Colson, who served as special
counsel to the president in 1970, admitted to prosecutors that Nixon was
not involved. Colson said that he had sat in on a Townhouse planning meeting
and later briefed the president about "political prospects in that race" -
but "did not recall that the fundraising aspects were discussed with the
President."
John Mitchell, who was attorney general before he resigned in 1972 to
head up Nixon's reelection campaign, attended a meeting for "substantial
contributors" and later told prosecutors that "the President stopped by, but
was not present during discussions of campaign finances." Mitchell himself
denied participation in or knowledge of the Town house plan. Even
Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's personal lawyer, seems to have been involved only
in the most benign part of the operation: the legal solicitation of funds from
wealthy donors. Of course, all this could be about denials and deniability -
but as we shall see, it apparently was not.
Meet John Dean
At the time Town house was becoming operational, the position of counsel
to the president opened up. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's trusted aide, was
moving to head up domestic affairs, and Ehrlichman was looking for someone
to replace him -- a smart lawyer and good detail man who was also loyal
to the president. The man who came on board on July 27, 1970, was John
Wesley Dean III.
Dean arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just as President Nixon was
trying to figure out how to deal with massive street demonstrations against
the Vietnam War. A month before, a White House staffer named Tom Huston
had drawn up a plan to spy on the demonstrators through electronic
surveillance, recruitment of campus informants, and surreptitious entry
into offices and meeting places.
In hindsight, this sounds especially odious, and it was, but at the time, and
from the vantage point of the administration and its supporters in the "silent
majority," America was besieged. The general atmosphere in the country
and the domestic violence, actual and hinted, surrounding the Vietnam War
debate, felt like chaos was descending. Even so, Attorney General John
Mitchell shot down the notorious "Huston Plan." John Dean, however, took
an immediate interest in some of the proposals.
Although his official duties centered on giving the president legal advice --
often on arcane technical matters -- Dean was considered a junior staffer and
had virtually no contact with Nixon. Nevertheless, the White House neophyte
quickly began taking on for himself the far edgier and dubious mantle of
political intelligence guru.
Among the bits of intelligence Dean collected were the details of the
Townhouse Operation. In November 1970, following the midterm elections,
Jack Gleason turned over all his files to the White House, where
Haldeman had them delivered to Dean. Watergate investigators would later
discover that "Haldeman also gave Dean several little notebooks which pertained
to the 1970 fundraising." Those little notebooks would have told Dean who the
donors were, how much they gave, and the identity of the recipients.
Shortly after the files ended up in Dean's hands, the media began
receiving -- perhaps coincidentally -- leaks about the Townhouse Operation.
One of the first reports was an AP article with no byline that appeared
in the New York Times on December 27, 1970. It said that seven
ambassadors had received their positions as rewards for their contributions
to the Townhouse Operation: "Mr. Jack Gleason left the staff of a
White House political operative, Harry Dent, this fall to run the fund-
raising campaign from a basement back office in a Washington townhouse."
And there it was: Gleason caught up in something that sounded
sinister, complete with the townhouse basement back office, all purportedly
on behalf of Richard Nixon.
In February 1972, someone cranked Townhouse back up again. Jim Polk,
an investigative reporter at the Washington Star with an impressive track
record on campaign finance matters, got more information about the fund
from "inside sources."
Polk published an article headlined "Obscure Lawyer Raises Millions for
Nixon." It sounded even more disturbing than the previous one. Polk's article
did two things: it introduced the public to Nixon's personal lawyer Kalmbach
and it provided many new details about the Townhouse fund.
A little-known lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions as an unpublicized fund- raiser . . . [and] as Nixon's personal agent . . . to collect campaign checks from Republican donors Kalmbach helped to raise nearly $3 million in covert campaign money . . . The checks were sent through a townhouse basement used by former Nixon political aide Jack A. Gleason. But the operation was run from inside the White House by presidential assistant H.R. (Bob) Haldeman . . . Only a portion of this money has shown up on public records. The rest of the campaign checks have been funneled through dummy committees.
When I spoke to Polk in 2008, not surprisingly, he no longer recalled the
identity of his source. But whoever had leaked this story to him was no
friend of Nixon's. Yet if it was intended to provoke further interest, it failed.
Someone had attempted to light a fuse with Townhouse, but it did not ignite.
Just four months later, however, another fuse was lit. And this one would
burn on and on.
The Brazen Burglary
If Townhouse was engineered to discredit Nixon, it had one potential flaw.
The wrongdoing involved technical financial matters that reporters might
find daunting. Watergate, on the other hand, was inherently sexy; it had all
the elements of the crime drama it became. The break-in was brazen and
easily grasped, and carried out in such a manner as to just about guarantee
both failure and discovery. It also involved a cast of characters that neither
reporters nor television cameras could resist (as the Watergate hearings later
would demonstrate). It was like a made-for-TV movie: burglars in business
suits, living in a fancy suite near the scene of the crime; Cuban expatriates;
documents in pockets leading to the White House. Even Nixon had to interrupt
his reelection campaign to confront it.
But the burglars didn't appear to take anything, so what was the intended
crime? Breaking and entering -- for what purpose?
As with the JFK assassination, theories abound. The burglars were found
with bugging equipment. But that made little sense; Nixon didn't have
much to worry about from his presumed Democratic opponent, George
McGovern. The risks of a bugging operation far outweighed any conceivable
gains. And if Nixon had really wanted inside dope on the McGovern
campaign, which he hardly needed, he could have sent teams into McGovern's
headquarters up on Capitol Hill, or to Miami, where the Democrats
would hold their convention.
If, on the other hand, the intent was to fire the public imagination, the
Watergate complex was far better -- and Washington itself a necessary locale
if the national press was to stay with the story week after week.
With all this in mind, Nixon's observation in his memoirs that "the whole
thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of
a setup" seems on the mark.
If the Cubans were really trying to do the job, their supervisors were
guilty of malpractice. They might as well have called the D.C. police to reserve
an interrogation room.
The flubs were so obvious it was as if they were the work of amateurs --
which it was not. Burglary team member James McCord left tape horizontally
over a lock, so that it could be spotted, as it was, by a security guard
when the door was closed. If he had taped the lock vertically, it would have
been invisible to a passerby. And if the intent was to pull off a real burglary,
there was no need for tape anyway -- as the burglars were already inside.
Even so, after the security guard discovered and removed the tape, McCord
put it right back.
The entire operation reflected poor judgment. An experienced burglar
would have known not to carry any sort of identification, and certainly not
identification that led back to the boss. How elementary is that? Among the
incriminating materials found on the Watergate burglars was a check with
White House consultant E. Howard Hunt's signature on it -- and Hunt's
phone number at the White House, in addition to checks drawn on Mexican
bank accounts. Despite the obvious risks, the burglars were also instructed
by Hunt to register at the Watergate Hotel, and to keep their room keys in
their pockets during the mission. These keys led investigators straight back
to an array of incriminating evidence, not the least damaging of which was
a suitcase containing the burglars' ID cards. Everything pointed back to
CREEP and the White House.
The most interesting thing was that the materials identified the burglars
as connected not just to the White House, but to the CIA as well. And not
just to the CIA, but to a group within the CIA that had been active during
the controversial period that included the Bay of Pigs invasion and the
assassination of JFK.
Hunt, whose status in the CIA was described earlier, was a high-ranking
(GS-15) officer and a member of the "Plumbers," a White House special
investigations unit ostensibly dedicated to stopping government leaks to the
media. As discussed in chapter 6, Hunt had been a key player in the coup in
Guatemala and the Bay of Pigs invasion, in addition to working very closely
with Allen Dulles himself. As noted previously, Dulles was in Dallas shortly
before November 22.
And Hunt had been there on the very day of the assassination, according
to an account confirmed in 1978 by James Angleton, the longtime CIA
counterintelligence chief. Angleton, clearly concerned that investigations
would uncover Hunt's presence in Dallas anyway, went so far as to alert a
reporter and a House Committee to Hunt's being in the city that day, and
then opined that Hunt had been involved in unauthorized activities while
there; 'Some very odd things were going on that were out of our control."
Watergate burglar and electronic surveillance expert James McCord, like
Hunt, had also been a GS-15 agent, serving for over a decade in the CIA's
Office of Security. Around the time of the Kennedy assassination, he began
working with anti-Castro Cubans on a possible future invasion of the island.
Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel, saying,
"This man is the best man we have." Regarding Nixon, McCord dismissed
him to a colleague as not a team player, not "one of us."
In a long-standing tradition, both Hunt and McCord had officially "resigned"
from the agency prior to the Watergate time frame. But their continued
involvement in CIA-related cover operations suggested otherwise.
Indeed, as noted earlier in the book, many figures, including Poppy Bush's
oil business colleague Thomas J. Devine, officially took retirement prior to
participating in seemingly independent operations in which deniability was
crucial.
Though Hunt claimed to have cut his CIA ties, he actually went out of
his way to draw attention to those ties while working in the Nixon White
House. He ostentatiously ordered a limousine to drive him from the
White House out to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was as though
he was trying to broadcast the notion that Nixon was working closely with
the agency -- with which, as we now know, the president was in reality battling.
After Hunt's alleged retirement, he was employed at the Mullen Company,
a public relations firm that served as a CIA cover. In a 1973 memo, Charles
Colson recounted a meeting he'd just had with Senate Republican minority
leader Howard Baker. Charles Colson wrote, "Baker said that the Mullen
Company was a CIA front, that [Hunt's] job with the Mullen Company was
arranged by [CIA director] Helms personally." Baker also informed Colson
that, during Hunt's time at the Mullen Company, his pay had been adjusted to
the exact salary he would have been making had he stayed at the spy agency.
Eugenio Martinez, one of the anti-Castro Cuban burglars, was another
CIA operative in the break-in crew. Indeed, he was the one member of the
team who remained actively on the CIA payroll, filing regular reports on the
activities of the team to his Miami case officer. Then there was Bernard L.
Barker, who first worked as an FBI in formant before being turned over to
the CIA during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs. Frank Sturgis, too, had CIA
connections. Martinez, Barker, and Sturgis had worked with Hunt and Mc-
Cord on the Second Naval Guerrilla operation.
So Nixon, who had been trying to see the CIA's file on the Bay of Pigs,
was now staring at a burglary purportedly carried out in his name by veterans
of the same "Bay of Pigs thing" with strong CIA ties. It was like a flashing
billboard warning. CIA professionals, Cuban exiles, all tied to the events
of 1961 through 1963, suddenly appearing in the limelight and tying themselves
and their criminal activity to the president.
If most of us ever knew, we have probably long since forgotten that before
the June 1972 Watergate break-in, there was another Watergate break-in
by the same crew. With this earlier one, though, they were careful to avoid
detection and were not caught. At that time, they installed listening devices.
The second burglary, the one that seemingly was designed for detection,
and designed to be traced back to the Nixon White House, ostensibly revolved
around removing listening devices installed earlier -- and therefore drawing
attention to the devices and the surveillance.
The conclusion one would likely draw from their being caught red-handed
is that Dick Nixon is up to yet another manifestation of his twisted and illegal
inclinations. And what were they listening to? Purportedly, DNC personnel
were arranging for "dates" for distinguished visitors with a call-girl ring. The
ring was operating from down the street, not far from where the bugs were
being monitored. The conclusion is that Nixon was perhaps trying to sexually
blackmail the Democrats. It got more and more objectionable.
But the fact is that no evidence shows Nixon wanting to sexually blackmail
Democrats, nor wanting to install bugs at the DNC, nor wanting to
order a burglary to remove the bugs. Yet somebody else clearly had a good
imagination, and a talent for executing a script that was magnificently inculpatory
of someone who would appear to deserve removal from the highest
office in the land.
Eventually, Americans would learn that the Watergate break-ins were
not the first such operation that made Nixon look bad, and not the first coordinated
by Hunt and featuring Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Back in September 1971, the team hit the Beverly Hills office of Dr.
Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who
leaked the explosive Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. First, though,
Nixon, who was initially indifferent over the leak, was persuaded to take on
the Times for publishing the documents, a posture that would position him
as a foe of public disclosure. It also escalated his already adversarial relationship
with the news media -- a relationship that would become a severe
disadvantage to Nixon as the Watergate "revelations" began to emerge.
Nixon was also persuaded to authorize the formation of a leak-busting
White House group, which was soon dubbed "the Plumbers." Soon, purportedly
operating on Nixon's behalf -- but without his actual approval -- the
Hunt team broke into Dr. Fieldingís office, having been told to photograph
Ellsberg's patient files.
However, as with Watergate, the burglary appears to have had an ulterior
motive. Senator Baker, ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee,
learned of this, according to White House special counsel Charles
Colson, when Baker interviewed the Cuban émigré Eugenio Martinez, who
participated in the burglaries of both Fielding's office and the DNC office in
Watergate:
Baker told me of his interview with Martinez who said that there were no patient records in Dr. Fielding's office, that he, Martinez, was very disappointed when they found nothing there, but Hunt on the other hand seemed very pleased and as a matter of fact broke out a bottle of champagne when the three men returned from the job. Martinez says that he has participated in three hundred or four hundred similar CIA operations, that this was clearly a 'cover' operation with no intention of ever finding anything.
In fact, though the burglars were ostensibly seeking records while on a
covert mission, they did not act like people who wished to avoid discovery. In
addition to smashing the windows and prying open the front door with a crowbar,
the burglars proceeded to vandalize the office, scattering papers, pills, and
files across the floor. The result was to ensure the generation of a crime report,
establishing a record of the burglary. The break-in would not become public
knowledge until John Dean dramatically revealed it two years later --
and implicitly tied Nixon to it by citing the involvement of Egil Krogh, the man in
charge of Nixon's so-called Plumbers unit.
Dean and his lawyers showed far greater enthusiasm for pursuing the
Beverly Hills break-in than even the prosecutors. As Renata Adler wrote in
the New Yorker: "Dean's attorney, Charles Shaffer, practically had to spell it
out to [the prosecutors] that they would be taking part in an obstruction of
justice themselves if they did not pass the information on."
Like Watergate, the Fielding office break-in was on its face a very bad idea
that was not approved by Nixon but certain to deeply embarrass him and
damage his public standing when it was disclosed. The principal accomplishment
of the break-in was to portray Nixon as a man who had no decency
at all -- purportedly even stooping to obtain private psychiatric records
of a supposed foe. This was almost guaranteed to provoke public revulsion.
The notion that a group surrounding the president could be working to
do him in might sound preposterous to most of us. But not to veterans of
America's clandestine operations, where the goal abroad has often been to
do just that. And Nixon was a perfect target: solitary, taciturn, with few
friends, and not many more people he trusted. Because of this, he had to
hire virtual strangers in the White House, and as a result, the place was
teeming with schemers. Nixon was too distrustful, and yet not distrustful
enough. It was supremely ironic. Nixon, ridiculed for his irrational hatred
and "paranoia" toward the Eastern Establishment, may in the end have been
done in by forces controlled by that very establishment. Of course, it was
nothing less than that level of power to remove presidents, plural, one after
the other if necessary.
Among the myriad plots was the so-called Moorer-Radford affair, cited in
chapter 9, in which the military actually was spying on Nixon and stealing
classified documents in an attempt to gain inside information, influence
policy, and perhaps even unseat the president.
That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon's guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984's Secret Agenda,
by former Harper's magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991's Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008's The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.
Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate is a biography
of Nixon's close friend, attorney general, and campaign chief, the
highest-ranking official ever to be sentenced to prison. The book, on which
Rosen labored for seventeen years, is based on sources not previously interviewed
and also on unprecedented access to documents generated by the Senate
Watergate Committee and Watergate special prosecutors. Rosen asserts
that the Watergate operation was authorized behind Mitchell's back by his
subordinate Jeb Magruder and by John Dean and was deliberately sabotaged
in its execution by burglar and former CIA officer James McCord. As Rosen
puts it:
Mitchell knew he had been set up. In later years, his mind reeled at the singular confluence of amazing characters that produced Watergate -- Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Helms, Hunt, McCord, Martinez -- and reckoned himself and the president, neither of whom enjoyed foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, victims in the affair. "The more I got into this," Mitchell said in June 1987, "the more I see how these sons of bitches have not only done Nixon in but they've done me in."
Rosen also writes:
The [Watergate] tapes unmasked Nixon not as the take-charge boss of a criminal conspiracy but rather as an aging and confused politician lost in a welter of detail, unable to distinguish his Magruders from his Strachans, uncertain who knew what and when, what each player had told the grand jury, whose testimony was direct, whose hearsay.
My independent research takes the argument one step further, and the facts in a completely
new direction. It leads to an even more disturbing conclusion as to what
was really going on, and why.
Woodward at His Post
The accepted narrative of Nixon as the villain of Watergate is based largely on
the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They both were young reporters
on the Washington Post's Metro desk when the story fell into their
laps.
When it was over, they were household names. Woodward in particular would
go on to become the nation's most visible investigative journalist, and indeed
the iconic representation of that genre. The work of "Woodstein" would play a
key role in enhancing the franchise of the Post itself. Yet this oeuvre -- in
particular the role of Woodward -- has become somewhat suspect among those
who have taken a second and third look -- including Columbia Journalism
Review contributing editor Steve Weinberg, in a November/December 1991
article.
Woodward did not fit the profile of the typical daily print reporter. Young,
midwestern, Republican, he attended Yale on an ROTC scholarship and
then spent five years in the Navy. He had begun with a top-secret security
clearance on board the USS Wright, specializing in communications, including
with the White House.
His commanding officer was Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander, who
would later be implicated in the military spy ring in the Nixon White
House, mentioned in chapter 9. According to Silent Coup, an exhaustive
study of the military espionage scandal, Woodward then arrived in Washington,
where he worked on the staff of Admiral Thomas Moorer, chief of naval
operations, again as a communications officer, this time one who provided
briefings and documents to top brass in the White House on national security
matters. According to this account, in 1969-70, Woodward frequently
walked through the basement offices of the White House West Wing with
documents from Admiral Moorer to General Alexander Haig, who served
under Henry Kissinger.
In a 2008 interview, Woodward categorically denied having any intelligence
connections. He also denied having worked in the White House or
providing briefings there. "It's a matter of record in the Navy what I did,
what I didn't do," Woodward said. "And this Navy Intelligence, Haig and so
forth, you know, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it if it's true. It just
isn't. Can you accept that?"
Journalist Len Colodny, however, has produced audiotapes of interviews
by his Silent Coup coauthor, Robert Gettlin, with Admiral Moorer, former defense
secretary Melvin Laird, Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim -- and
even with Woodward's own father, Al -- speaking about Bob's White House
service.
At a minimum, Woodward's entry into journalism received a valuable
outside assist, according to an account provided by Harry Rosenfeld, a retired
Post editor, to the Saratogian newspaper in 2004:
Bob had come to us on very high recommendations from someone in the White House. He had been an intelligence officer in the Navy and had served in the Pentagon. He had not been exposed to any newspaper. We gave him a tryout because he was so highly recommended. We customarily didn't do that. We wanted to see some clips, and he had none of that. We tried him out, and after a week or two I asked my deputy, "What's with this guy?" And he said well, he's a very bright guy but he doesn't know how to put the paper in the typewriter. But he was bright, there was that intensity about him and his willingness, and he acted maturely. So we decided because he had come so highly recommended and he had shown certain strengths that we would help get him a job at the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2008, some time after I spoke to Woodward, I reached Rosenfeld. He
said he did not recall telling the Saratogian that Woodward had been hired
on the advice of someone in the White House. He did, however, tell me that
he remembered that Woodward had been recommended by Paul Ignatius,
the Post's president. Prior to taking over the Post's presidency, Ignatius had
been Navy secretary for President Johnson.
In a 2008 interview, Ignatius told me it was possible that he had a hand
in at least recommending Woodward. "It's possible that somebody asked
me about him, and it's possible that I gave him a recommendation," Ignatius
said. "I don't remember initiating anything, but I can't say I didn't." I
asked Ignatius how a top Pentagon administrator such as himself would
even have known of a lowly lieutenant, such as Woodward was back in
those days, and Ignatius said he did not recall.
In September 1971, after one year of training at the Maryland-based Sentinel,
Woodward was hired at the Washington Post . The Post
itself is steeped
in intelligence connections. The paper's owner, the Graham family, were, as
noted in chapter 3, aficionados of the apparatus, good friends of top spies,
and friends also of Prescott Bush. They even helped fund Poppy Bush's earliest
business venture. Editor Ben Bradlee was himself a Yale graduate who,
like Woodward, had spent time in naval intelligence during World War II.
(As noted earlier, Poppy Bush had also been associated with naval intelligence
during World War II: prior to beginning his work with the CIA, he had
been involved with top-secret aerial reconnaissance photography.)
Woodward demonstrated his proclivity for clandestine sources a month
before the Watergate break-in, in his coverage of the shooting and serious
wounding of presidential candidate George Wallace at a shopping center in
Washington's Maryland suburbs. A lone gunman, Arthur Bremer, would be
convicted. Woodward impressed his editors with his tenacity on the case,
and his contacts. As noted in a journalistic case study published by Columbia
University:
At the time, according to [Post editors Barry] Sussman and [Harry]
Rosenfeld, Woodward said he had "a friend" who might be able to
help. Woodward says his "friend" filled him in on Bremer's background
and revealed that Bremer had also been stalking other
presidential candidates.
As to Woodward's initial introduction to the newspaper, nobody seems to
have questioned whether a recommendation from someone in the White
House would be an appropriate reason for the Post to hire a reporter. Nor
does anyone from the Post appear to have put a rather obvious two and two
together, and noted that Woodward made quick work of bringing down the
president, and therefore wondered who at the White House recommended
Woodward in the first place -- and with what motivation.
Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff -- including future senator Fred Thompson --
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:
The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the delay merely means that they don't want to admit that Woodward was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last week complaining about the CIA's non-cooperation, the fact that they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative. The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to [CIA Director] Colby with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately leaked to him.
Woodward's good connections would help generate a series of exclusive-
access interviews that would result in rapidly produced bestselling books.
One was Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, a controversial book
that relied in part, Woodward claimed, on a deathbed interview -- not
recorded -- with former CIA director William Casey. The 543-page book,
which came out as Poppy Bush was seeking the presidency, contained no
substantive mentions of any role on the part of Bush in these "secret wars,"
though Bush was both vice president with a portfolio for covert ops and a
former CIA director.
Asked how it was possible to leave Bush out of such a detailed account of
covert operations during his vice presidency, Woodward replied, "Bush was,
well, I don't think he was -- What was it he said at the time? I was out of the
loop?" Woodward went on to be blessed with unique access to George W.
Bush -- a president who did not grant a single interview to America's top
newspaper, the New York Times, for nearly half his administration -- and the
automatic smash bestsellers that guaranteed. Woodward would also distinguish
himself for knowing about the administration's role in leaking the
identity of CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame but not writing or saying
anything about it, despite an ongoing investigation and media tempest.
When this was revealed, Woodward issued an apology to the Post.
To its credit, the Washington Post in these years had other staffers doing
some of the best reporting on the intelligence establishment. Perhaps the
most revealing work came prior to Nixon's tenure, while Woodward was still
doing his naval service. In a multipart, front-page series by Richard Harwood
in early 1967, the paper began reporting the extent to which the CIA
had penetrated civil institutions not just abroad, but at home as well. "It was
not enough for the United States to arm its allies, to strengthen governmental
institutions, or to finance the industrial establishment through economic
and military programs," Harwood wrote. "Intellectuals, students, educators,
trade unionists, journalists and professional men had to be reached directly
through their private concerns." Journalists too. Even Carl Bernstein later
wrote about the remarkable extent of the CIA's penetration of newsrooms,
detailing numerous examples, in a 1977 Rolling Stone article. As for the Post
itself, Bernstein wrote:
When Newsweek was purchased by the
Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press. Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965-66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
When the Watergate burglary story broke, Bob Woodward got the assignment,
in part, his editor Barry Sussman recalled, because he never
seemed to leave the building. "I worked the police beat all night," Wood-
ward said in an interview with authors Tom Rosenstiel and Amy S.
Mitchell, "and then I'd go home -- I had an apartment five blocks from the
Post -- and sleep for a while. I'd show up in the newsroom around 10 or 11
[in the morning] and work all day too. People complained I was working too
hard." So when the bulletin came in, Woodward was there. The result was
a front-page account revealing that E. Howard Hunt's name appeared in the
address book of one of the burglars and that a check signed by Hunt had
been found in the pocket of another burglar, who was Cuban. It went further:
Hunt, Woodward reported, worked as a consultant to White House counsel
Charles Colson.
Thus, Woodward played a key role in tying the burglars to Nixon.
Woodward would later explain in All the President's Men (coauthored with
Bernstein) that to find out more about Hunt, he had "called an old friend
and sometimes source who worked for the federal government." His friend
did not like to be contacted at this office and "said hurriedly that the break-
in case was going to 'heat up,' but he couldn't explain and hung up." Thus
began Woodward's relationship with Deep Throat, that mysterious source
who, Woodward would later report, served in the executive branch of government
and had access to information in the White House and CREEP.
Based on tips from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein began to "follow
the money," writing stories in September and October 1972 on a political
"slush fund" linked to CREEP. One story reported that the fund had
financed the bugging of the Democratic Party's Watergate headquarters as
well as other intelligence-gathering activities. While Nixon coasted to a
landslide victory over the liberal Democrat George McGovern, the story
seemed to go on hiatus. But just briefly.
Poppy Enters, Stage Right
If someone did want to undermine the president from outside the White
House, he couldn't have found a better perch than the chairmanship of the
Republican Party.
Right after the election, Poppy Bush, again utilizing his pull with Nixon,
had persuaded the president to bring him back from his cushy U.N. post
and install him at the Republican National Committee. This put him at the
very epicenter of the nationwide Republican elite that would ultimately
determine whether Nixon would stay or go.
As chairman of the RNC, Poppy was expected to be the president's chief
advocate, especially to the party faithful. He would travel widely, interact
with big donors and party activists. If anyone would have their finger on the
pulse of the loyalist base, it was Poppy. He would have a good sense of what
would keep supporters in line, and conversely, what might convince them to
abandon ship.
But Poppy was unique among RNC chairmen over the years in that he
had convinced Nixon to let him maintain an official presence at the White
House. Just as Nixon had permitted him to participate in cabinet meetings
as U.N. ambassador, he now continued to extend that privilege while Poppy
ran the RNC. This was unprecedented for someone in such an overtly partisan
position.
Here was a man closely connected to the CIA, as we have seen, now both
running the Republican Party and sitting in on cabinet deliberations. An
intelligence officer couldn't have asked for a better perch. Moreover, this put
him in the catbird seat just as Watergate began heating up.
But Poppy was even more wired into Nixonworld. When he came to the
RNC, he hired Harry Dent and Tom Lias, the top officials of Nixon's Political
Affairs office, which had established the Town house Operation. Dent was
the architect of Nixon's Southern strategy, with which Poppy Bush and his
backers were closely allied. Lias had ties to Poppy from before working in
the White House. He had been a top organizer for the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee, strategizing how to elect people like Poppy to
formerly Democratic seats in the South.
After Poppy came to Washington, the two often socialized. According to
Pierre Ausloos, stepfather of Lias's daughter, and a friend of the family, "On
weekends, Bush would always invite [Lias] for a barbecue party at his house
here in Washington." Ausloos also remembers that during the 1968
Republican convention, Liasís daughter's babysitter was Poppy's son, George
W. Bush.
Thus, at the time Dent and Lias were installed in the White House Political
Affairs office, they were already close with Bush. Indeed, right after the
1970 election and the termination of the Town house Operation, Bush took
Lias with him to New York, where Lias served as a top aide on Poppy's
United Nations staff. The U.N. choice struck people who knew Lias as odd.
Lias had no relevant qualifications or knowledge for the U.N. post, just as
Poppy himself didn't.
Poppy's decision, once he moved to the RNC, to hire both Lias and
Dent -- the two men supervising Jack Gleason's Town house Operation --
is surely significant.
Meanwhile, Poppy Bush and his team had already been in contact with
John Dean.
In a brief 2008 conversation, in which a prickly Dean sought to control
the conditions of the interview, I asked him whether he had any dealings
with Bush. "I think there are some phone calls on my phone logs, but I
never met with him personally," he said.
Indeed, phone logs show that on June 24, 1971, Ambassador Bush called
Dean, and on December 6, 1971, Tom Lias of Ambassador Bush's office
called. The logs show other calls from Lias as well. It is not clear -- nor did
Dean volunteer an opinion -- why Bush and Lias would have been calling
him at all.
Slumming in Greenwich
When the Senate created a committee to investigate Watergate, there was no
guarantee that anything would come of it. The perpetrators -- the burglars
and their supervisors, Hunt and Liddy -- were going on trial, and it was uncertain
whether the hearings would produce any further insights. Moreover,
the committee featured four rather somnolent Democrats and three Republicans,
two of them staunch Nixon loyalists.
This left only one wild card: Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican from
Connecticut.
A freshman, and an independent one, Weicker was not disposed to knee-
jerk defense of Nixon. Furthermore, he saw himself as a crusader. At six feet
six, Weicker was imposing, considered basically well-intentioned, a little
naive, and in love with publicity. He had gotten his political start in the
Bush hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut; and like the Bushes, he was
heir to a family fortune, in his case from two grandfathers who owned the
Squibb pharmaceutical company.
But there the similarities ended. Weicker chose for his base Greenwich's
Third Voting District, which consisted almost entirely of working-class
Italians. "Just decent, hard-working, down-to-basics families," Weicker
would say. "Had I been raised as a typical Republican in the salons of Fair-
field County, discussing international issues at teas and cocktail parties,
I know my career would have been a short one once off the Greenwich
electoral scene." In 1960, Weicker aligned himself with Albert Morano,
a congressional candidate opposed by the Bush family. Now the Bushes
saw Weicker as a traitor to his class. Over the years, Weicker and Bush
would generally maintain a cool but civil relationship, driven by political
expediency.
"I think he was viewed as an outsider from day one, and it was a perspective
he relished," said Townhouse operative Jack Gleason. "Because he
always used to joke about 'the Round Hill boys out to get me again' every
time he was up for reelection."
Weicker had arrived in Washington in 1968, following his election to the
House of Representatives. Given the past, this would have made him a
not-very-welcome colleague of Poppy Bush. And Poppy probably was not
enthused when, after only two years in the House, Weicker was elected
to Prescott Bush's old Senate seat -- in the same year Poppy lost his second
Senate bid. Weicker's star was rising faster than Poppy's -- and in the Bush
home state to boot. It must have rankled.
Still, Weicker's least endearing qualities -- his considerable ambition,
love of publicity, and penchant for self-aggrandizement -- would shortly
prove useful in at least one respect: as a champion of the "truth" on the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, commonly
known as the Watergate Committee. The same Republican maverick who
had no qualms about challenging his party's leadership in Connecticut
would soon debut his maverick persona on the national stage.
In his memoirs, Weicker writes that he was given the Watergate Committee
assignment because he was one of only two Republicans who volunteered
and that his interest in "campaign financing" and dwindling faith in
the democratic process spurred his personal interest. Interestingly, the
other Republican volunteer, stalwart conservative Edward J. Gurney of Florida,
had won his seat with the help of Bush's top political lieutenant, Jimmy
Allison -- and eldest son George W. Bush, who took the extraordinary step of
securing a leave from his National Guard unit in 1968, when he had barely
begun his military training. The other Republican on the committee was Minority
Leader Howard Baker, a moderate. Weicker was the only Republican
on the committee with the inclination to prove his independence from the
party and openly challenge the president.
By the spring of 1973, six defendants had been sentenced in the DNC burglary,
and the Watergate hearings were due to begin. There was now an opportunity
for Nixon to put the whole Watergate affair behind him, without
mortal damage to his presidency. Weicker, however, already saw his role as
an honest broker, and he criticized Nixon's attempts at tamping down the
matter. "I think the national interest is achieved by opening, not closing, the
White House doors," he said. He added that he would vote in favor of subpoenas
for White House officials to appear before the committee.
Poppy Bush apparently agreed. On March 20, the day after Weicker's remarks,
Poppy went to see Nixon at the Oval Office. In his usual oblique way,
ascribing his advice to others, he urged Nixon to send John Dean to testify.
BUSH: We're getting hit a little bit, Mr. President . . . It's building, and the mail's getting heavier . . . NIXON: What do you think you can do about it? . . . We've got hearings coming up. The hearings will make it worse. BUSH: . . . I was speaking with the executives at the Bull Elephants The guy said to me, why doesn't the President send Dean? . . . The disclosure is what they're calling for. NIXON: We are cooperating They don't want any cooperation. They aren't interested in getting the facts. They're only interested in [politicalgains?] I wish there were an answer to Watergate, but I just don't know any . . . I don't know a damn thing to do. [emphasis added]
John Ehrlichman remembers that meeting well, as noted in his memoirs.
"Bush argued that the only way to blunt the current onslaught in the newspapers
and on television was for the president to be totally forthcoming -- to
tell everything he knew about all aspects of Watergate."
This was a significant moment, where Poppy demonstrates a possible
connection to and interest in Dean. It was a sort of specific advice that warrants
attention, because it is an indication that the outsider Bush is unusually
well informed about who knows what inside the White House --
and encourages Nixon to let Dean begin confessing his knowledge. When I
asked Dean in 2008 why he thought Poppy Bush was suggesting he testify,
he said he had no idea.
Nixon resisted Poppy's advice to have Dean testify because, Nixon maintained,
there was no White House staff involvement in Watergate, and
therefore Dean's testimony would serve only to break executive privilege,
once and for all. "The president can't run his office by having particularly
his lawyer go up and testify," Nixon told Poppy.
If Poppy Bush seemed to have unusually good intelligence as to what
was happening in the Oval Office, it might have had something to do with
a good friend of his who was right in there with Nixon and Dean during the
most critical days of Watergate. Richard A. Moore, a lawyer who served as a
kind of elder statesman off of whom Nixon and Mitchell could bounce
ideas, was, like Poppy, an alumnus of Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.
Moore served as special assistant to the chief of military intelligence during
World War II and is believed to have transitioned to civilian intelligence
after the war. Over the years, Moore was practically a member of the
extended Bush clan, exchanging intimate notes with Poppy and even joining
family dinners.
Moore shows up in background roles on a number of Nixon tapes, and
phone logs show a flurry of phone calls between Moore and Dean, especially
in the final weeks before Dean turned on Nixon. In a little-reported taped telephone
conversation from March 16, Dean tells Nixon that he and Moore are
working on a Watergate report; he also mentions that he and Moore drive
home together. On March 20, in an Oval Office meeting featuring Nixon,
Dean, and Moore -- just prior to Nixon's meeting with Poppy Bush --
Moore can be heard typing the report in the background.
Dean would later write that the term "cancer" as used in his famous "cancer
on the presidency" briefing had been suggested by Moore -- who though a close
Nixon adviser in these sensitive days, managed to emerge from Watergate
obscure and unscathed. His Watergate testimony did not support Dean, but
he tended to be ambiguous. As Time magazine noted on July 23, 1973,
"The Moore testimony was certainly not evidence that the President
had had prior knowledge of the Plumbers' felonious break-in. But it seemingly
betrayed a curious nonchalance on the President's part toward questionable
activities by White House staffers."
Later, with Nixon departing and Ford preparing to become president,
Moore urged Ford to make Poppy Bush his vice president, arguing that
Bush had strong economic credentials. Moore specifically cited Poppy's ties
to Wall Street through his father and grandfather, "both highly respected investment
bankers in New York." Moore would go on to work on all of Poppy
Bush's presidential campaigns, including his unsuccessful 1980 bid, and
would in 1989 be named by Poppy as his ambassador to Ireland.
Repeat After Me
Immediately after Poppy tried to convince Nixon to send Dean to testify,
Dean himself telephoned the president. Dean asked to urgently meet the
following morning and carefully explained to Nixon that there were important
details of which the president was unaware and that he would tell him
about these things -- but did not yet tell him:
DEAN: I think that one thing that we have to continue to do, and particularly right now, is to examine the broadest, broadest implications of this whole thing, and, you know, maybe about thirty minutes of just my recitations to you of facts so that you operate from the same facts that everybody else has. NIXON: Right. DEAN: I don't think -- we have never really done that. It has been sort of bits and pieces. Just paint the whole picture for you, the soft spots, the potential problem areas [emphasis added]
In other words, Dean was admitting, nine months into the scandal, that
he knew quite a bit about Watergate that he had never revealed to the president.
Now Dean planned to clue him in.
Nixon then inquired about the progress on a public statement Dean was
to be preparing -- and was made to understand that the statement was going
to try to avoid specifics, i.e., employ a common practice, stonewalling:
NIXON: And so you are coming up, then with the idea of just a stonewall then? Is that -- DEAN: That's right. NIXON: Is that what you come down with? DEAN: Stonewall, with lots of noises that we are always willing to cooperate, but no one is asking us for anything.
Nixon went on to pressure Dean to issue a statement to the cabinet explaining,
in very general terms, the White House's willingness to cooperate in any
investigations. Without going into detail, Nixon wanted to publicly defend the
innocence of White House officials whom he believed were innocent:
NIXON: I just want a general -- DEAN: An all-around statement. NIXON: That's right. Try just something general. Like "I have checked into this matter; I can categorically, based on my investigation, the following: Haldeman is not involved in this, that and the other thing. Mr. Colson did not do this; Mr. So- and- so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this." Right down the line, taking the most glaring things. If there are any further questions, please let me know. See? DEAN: Uh huh, I think we can do that.
But Dean apparently didn't intend to "do that." He was seemingly waiting
for the right moment to create the right effect -- and that moment would not
come until he had jumped the wall to the other side and become the key witness
for the prosecution.
In Haldemans diary entry of the same day, he observes that Nixon wants
to come clean, but that Dean is warning him not to:
[The president] feels strongly that we've got to say something to get ourselves away from looking like we're completely on the defensive and on a cover-up basis. If we . . . are going to volunteer to send written statements . . . we might as well do the statements now and get them publicized and get our answers out. The problem is that Dean feels this runs too many leads out. [emphasis added]
Thus, according to this account, Nixon was interested in facing his problems.
This included, it appears, telling what they knew -- Nixon's version, in
any case.
And John Dean was urging Nixon not to do that. To make that case, Dean
was feeding Nixon's paranoia. In other words, Dean seemed to be saying:
Too many leads out. Let me control this process.
In response to a combination of events -- Weicker's call for more disclosure,
Bush's intervention with Nixon aimed at forcing Dean to testify, and
Dean's own insistence that there was more to the story -- Nixon met with
Dean the next day. That conversation, together with the smoking gun episode,
would help seal Nixon's fate.
On the morning of March 21, Nixon's White House counsel stepped
into the Oval Office and proceeded to deliver a speech that would make
Dean famous for the rest of his life. He would dramatically warn the president
of a "cancer on the presidency" soon to become inoperable. This
speech, which would shortly become Dean's principal evidence against
Nixon, may have been carefully calculated based on Dean's awareness
that the conversations were being taped. (Dean would later say he suspected
he was being taped, but as we shall see, he may have known for certain.)
In fact, for this dramatic moment, Dean had begun performing dress
rehearsals some eight days earlier. This is borne out by earlier taped
conversations -- ones whose very existence has been largely suppressed in
published accounts. In these earlier tapes, we hear Dean beginning to tell
Nixon about White House knowledge related to Watergate. (Most of these
tapes are excluded from what is generally considered the authoritative compendium
of transcripts, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, by Stanley Kutler,
who told me in a 2008 interview that he considers himself a close friend
of John Dean.)
In one unpublicized taped conversation, from March 13, Dean told Nixon
that Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan had foreknowledge of the break-in,
was already lying about it in interviews, and would continue to do so before
a grand jury. The Watergate prosecutors, for whom Dean was a crucial witness,
had the March 13 tape, but did not enter it into evidence.
DEAN: Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and -- NIXON: You don't think so? DEAN: No. Absolutely not. NIXON: Did Strachan? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: He knew? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: About the Watergate? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN: He was, he was judicious in what he, in what he relayed, and, uh, but Strachan is as tough as nails. I -- NIXON: What'll he say? Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN: He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews.
This is significant since Strachan, a junior staff member, was essentially
reporting to Dean -- a fact that Dean failed to point out to Nixon. Although
Strachan was Haldeman's aide, when it came to matters like these, he
would, at Dean's request, deal directly with Dean.
"As to the subject of political intelligence-gathering," Strachan told the Senate Watergate
Committee,
"John Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee
to Re-elect the President." Thus, if Strachan knew anything about Watergate,
even after the fact, it seems to have been because Dean included him in
the flow of "intelligence."
On March 17, in another tape generally excluded from accounts of Watergate,
Dean told Nixon about the Ellsberg break-in. He also provided a long list of
people who he felt might have "vulnerabilities" concerning Watergate,
and included himself in that list.
NIXON: Now, you were saying too, ah, what really, ah, where the, this thing leads, I mean in terms of the vulnerabilities and so forth. It's your view the vulnerables are basically Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman, indirectly, possibly directly, and of course, the second level is, as far as the White House is concerned, Chapin. DEAN: And I'd say Dean, to a degree. NIXON: You? Why? DEAN: Well, because I've been all over this thing like a blanket. NIXON: I know, I know, but you know all about it, but you didn't, you were in it after the deed was done. DEAN: That's correct, that I have no foreknowledge . . . NIXON: Here's the whole point, here's the whole point. My point is that your problem is you, you have no problem. All the others that have participated in the God-damned thing, and therefore are potentially subject to criminal liability. You're not. That's the difference.
In the heavily publicized "cancer" speech of March 21, Dean essentially
reiterated what he had told Nixon previously, if in more detail. But he added
an important element -- one which would cause Nixon serious problems
when the "cancer" tape was played for the public: a request for one million
dollars in "hush money" for the burglars. Informed by Dean of a "continual
blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans," Nixon asked how
much money they needed. Dean responded, "These people are going to cost
a million dollars over the next two years." There is debate as to whether
Nixon actually agreed with Dean's suggestion to pay money or merely ruminated
over it. He never did pay the money.
Dean's behavior did not appear to be that of a lawyer seeking to protect
his client, let alone advice appropriate to the conduct of the presidency.
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized
Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences
at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path
led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William
Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population
of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual
war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that
wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards
of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured
the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are
'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack;
The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is
pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.
If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been
passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.
A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after
you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)
Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present
danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the
"anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since
his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.
Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building
exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than
I had imagined.
This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The
cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those
dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police
and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.
Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no
longer represents your interests? Look no further.
The problem is now. We are the new targets.
Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.
I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information.
There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but
I do feel the listing needs be corrected.
The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:
Chapter 16: Major General Bruce Lawlor: From CIA Officer in Vietnam to Homeland Security Honcho
Chapter 17: Homeland Security: The Phoenix Comes Home to Roost
PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW
Chapter 18: Fragging Bob Kerrey: The CIA and the Need for a War Crimes Tribunal
Chapter 19: Top Secret America Shadow Reward System
Chapter 20: How Government Tries to Mess with Your Mind
Chapter 21: Disguising Obama's Dirty War
Chapter 22: Parallels of Conquest, Past and Present
Chapter 23: Propaganda as Terrorism
Chapter 24: The War on Terror as the Greatest Covert Op Ever
This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years.
The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double
shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization
and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
Several months ago it emerged that the Republican sponsor behind the Fusion GPS Trump
project was hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a fact which surprised many who expected that
John McCain would be the GOP mastermind looking for dirt in Trump's past. However, a new and
credible McCain trail has emerged in the annals of the "Trump Dossier" after the
Washington Examiner reported that the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to an
associate of John McCain over his connection with the salacious dossier containing unverified
allegations about Trump and his ties to Russia, which many speculate served as the illegitimate
basis for FISA warrants against the Trump campaign - permitting the NSA to listen in on Trump's
phone calls - and which the
president yesterday slammed as "bogus" and a "crooked Hillary pile of garbage."
In the latest twist, committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) wants to talk to David Kramer, a
former State Department official and current senior fellow at the McCain Institute for
International Leadership at Arizona State University, about his visit to London in November
2016. During his trip, at McCain's request Kramer met with the dossier's author, former British
spy Christopher Steele, to view "the pre-election memoranda on a confidential basis," according
to court filings and to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier. Kramer then
returned to the U.S. to give the document to McCain. McCain then took a copy of the dossier to
the FBI's then-director, James Comey. But the FBI already had the document; Steele himself gave
the dossier to the bureau in installments, reportedly beginning in early July 2016. While
McCain, recovering in Arizona from treatments for cancer, has long refused to detail his
actions regarding the dossier, his associate Kramer was interviewed by the House Intelligence
Committee on Dec. 19. The new subpoena stems from statements Kramer made in that interview. In
the session, the Washington Examiner reports, Kramer told House investigators that he knew the
identities of the Russian sources for the allegations in Steele's dossier. But when
investigators pressed Kramer to reveal those names, he declined to do so.
Now, he is under subpoena which was issued Wednesday afternoon, and directs Kramer to appear
again before House investigators on Jan. 11.
As the ongoing government probe slowly turns away from Trump's "collusion" with the Russians
and toward the FBI "insurance policy" to allegedly prevent Trump from becoming president by
fabricating a narrative of Russian cooperation with the Trump, knowing Steele's sources will be
a critical part of the congressional dossier investigation:
"If one argues the document is unverified and never will be, it is critical to learn the
identity of the sources to support that conclusion. If one argues the document is the whole
truth, or largely true, knowing sources is equally critical."
There is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn not just the origin
of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. As the WashEx adds, there is a
belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who provided information to
Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as the Russians who
distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators' views, they are the two
sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the American
political system.
Still, investigators who favor this theory ask a sensible question: " It is likely that all
the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheing,
Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America – except the Russians who talked to
Christopher Steele? "
On the other hand, the theory is still just a theory, for now... and as the Examiner's Byron
York correctly points out, to validate -or refute - it House investigators will seek Steele's
sources – and is why they will try to compel Kramer to talk.
They just gave a bunch of suckers and con artists a lot of fucking bullshit. They wanted
something they could use in a scheme to rig the election for Hillary. They'd believe
anything.
"...there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who
provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as
the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails."Since the emails could not have
been hacked from the server by the Russians (according to Binny the download speeds are
impossible across the internet), it naturally follows that anyone who still believes this
myth is willfully ignorant.
Not that many tons!If you don't want to read the article and forensic evidence, 23 meg
data transfer, transocean does not exist of 2 gig in 87 seconds. It does not exist locally,
maybe now it does in certain point to point nodes only, but not through an IP."The metadata
established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5,
2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87
seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.These statistics are
matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider,
such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this
speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania,
which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed
of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.What is the maximum achievable speed?
Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server
speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came
up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second -- half what the DNC operation would need were
it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a
survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use
it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half
2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes
per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were
recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second."A
speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a
transoceanic data transfer," Folden said. "Based on the data we now have, what we've been
calling a hack is impossible." Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted
more recently. It tightens the case considerably. "Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per
second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when
communicating over the Internet at any significant distance," he wrote. "Further, local copy
speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a
USB–2 flash device (thumb drive)."
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-abo
Sorry, but any credence whatsoever to "Russia", even saying the name, is diversionary
twaddle of the first rank.It is the content of Hillary's emails and the criminal conduct of
the conspirators, not Russia, that matters. I don't give a shit about Russia, period. Irony
in the story? So what. We need Clinton at the gas chamber for sedition. When Seth Rich
downloaded the DNC files on a thumb drive, the conspirators had to get in front of the story.
So before Wikileaks released the emails, the DNC and deep state already had the story out
that Russians had hacked them.Since the Wikileaks release it has been nonstop Russia Russia
Russia.
it is called loosing control. or loosing an election. now they are loosing it, mentaly,
and starting to do really dumb shit. just like criminals when the law closes in. getting
desparate. anything can happen, when psychopaths are cornered...
OOOhhh, a subpoena. Yeah, that'll do it. That'll scare the shit out of him. Got a
suggestion: Have a couple of Federal Marshalls drag his ass out of bed at 0-Dark-30, handcuff
him and drag his ass kicking & screaming into the House Chamber, with black eyes and
multiple cuts & contusions. Maybe then, and ONLY THEN, will we get some real answers as
to what is going on. Quit fucking around with these tratorious assholes for once.
A reasonably intelligent person would be insulted by the actions of these people who
clearly think they can throw out meaningless garbage to keep people from paying attention to
what is really important.Hookers widdled on the donald! Did not...Did too! Did not... Did
too!Is your intelligence insulted yet? If not, maybe there's a reason for that.Apparently the
fat Don gave up two of your National Parks recently to his friends, the Corporate resource
extractors.. He's been busy shining Israeli boots too in case you didn't notice. He owes the
old Vegas sin vendor you see., And when you owe Vegas, and the resource extractors like Koch
bros, you pay the debt. Or else.
Quote from articleThere is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn
not just the origin of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. As the
WashEx adds, there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who
provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as
the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators' views,
they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in
the American political system.IMOP As a Australian i await a 'republican or democrap' to come
to me and ask (for monetary reward) whats my thoughts on Hellory CUNTon. I wont hold back and
to hell with interfering with the Presidential election. Dying to good for her!
I bet the Russians who gave that guppy Steele the information for the dossier must have
laughed their asses off for months at a time! I bet they haven't stopped laughing.......
"As the WashEx adds, there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the
Russians who provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American
election as much as the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some
investigators' views, they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at
sowing chaos and discord in the American political system." Well, the neocons should be
happy. Either way, Hillary guilty or Trump guilty, the Russkis were complicit and sowing
chaos and discord. Win-win for the war party narrative. BTW, the democrat party emails were
leaked, not hacked - the biggest of all the big lies.
What about Binney? No mention of that little factoid? The emails were downloaded locally.
The data proves that the data was down loaded at a speed that could only be done directly to,
say a thumbdrive. Thump ordered the CIA head Pompaio to meet Binney and discuss the matter.
It has been shown that US policy dictates that the local download cannot have happened lest
the entire integegence community look stupid. Chack it out https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william
He's a lifelong lefty swamp dweller with a background in Russian and human rights affairs.
He left the State Dept. in 2009 for his current job at the McCain Inst. at Arizona State.
But just why was Kramer, of all people, sent to London to meet with Steele, and on whose
initiative? On McCain's?
Is he connected to Fusion GPS or the Ohrs? And why would he make the bombshell claim to
know the identities of the Russian sources of the dossier when testifying before the House
Intelligence Committee and then refuse to actually name names?
Just a hunch, but I wonder if Mr. Kramer had a hand in fabricating the dossier?
Which begs the question: Was McCain involved in fabricating the dossier?
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle
sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of
Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the
Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss.
And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into
the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.
"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the
magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity
level."
Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be
the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour
coat up to?
That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated
the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later
told 60 Minutes that the firing
was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby
expanded the investigation.
Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the
mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon
told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's
probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said
that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it
seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.
Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney
General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away
from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.
There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and
Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded.
Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for
a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."
Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka
were
sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms.
Perhaps more ominous for Kushner,
and according
to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's
real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller
III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about
the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional
stuff? Like, what stuff?"
Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation
exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post
reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator
Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)
Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according
to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security
adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation
insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early
on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in
jail . This week Christie
said that
Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder,
cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.
President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion
or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin
blamed
the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate."
According to CNN , Trump
took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely
no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."
Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on
CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows
how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts
of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."
Writing in
Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election
seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to
Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.
It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.
******
If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me
in small claims court via email to [email protected]. My
email alerts
never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea
deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR
firms on retainer.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
"... It's why journalists like Luke Harding and Anne Applebaum want their readers to believe they are part of James Bond-style events in Moscow, where KGB agents are breaking in their windows and stealing their purses. More than anything else, those dubious tales are about confirming their own relevance and making sure their readers know how 'important' they are: Look at me, I was brave enough to venture into the Russian abyss, please acknowledge my efforts with endless praise and adulation. ..."
Good hatchet job in RT on the Steele
dossier (which links to a
Tablet investigation
worth reading) which explains why you shouldn't pay too much attention to what writers like Luke Harding (The Guardian) and Anne
Applebaum (The Washington Post) output:
But Ohr hasn't lived in Russia for decades either -- and she isn't a spy or a journalist, as Smith notes. This presumably is
why much of the 'reporting' in the dossier is based on rumor and hearsay; the kind of information that gets bandied around
in Moscow's expat circles where everyone is trying to one-up each other by claiming to have 'insider' knowledge.
This phenomenon is actually key to understanding not just Russiagate, but Western reporting on Russia in general. It's almost
a kind of Cold War nostalgia. Journalists are lured by the prospect of appearing to be 'in on' the latest Kremlin intrigue
or, even better, the appearance that they are so important that the Kremlin is out to get them; that they are truly living
on the edge.
It's why journalists like Luke Harding and Anne Applebaum want their readers to believe they are part of James Bond-style
events in Moscow, where KGB agents are breaking in their windows and stealing their purses. More than anything else, those
dubious tales are about confirming their own relevance and making sure their readers know how 'important' they are: Look at
me, I was brave enough to venture into the Russian abyss, please acknowledge my efforts with endless praise and adulation.
Anne Applebaum is now at the "London School of Economics as a Professor of Practice at the Institute for Global Affairs. At
the LSE she runs Arena, a program on disinformation and 21st century propaganda". She should be well versed in disinformation
and 21st century propaganda because she's been delivering it on behalf of the Washington establishment for quite some time although
I suspect her program is a "hit job" on Moscow.
Annie applepants is a confirmed Russia hater... she never lets up even when he husband loses his position in the polish political
process... and it explains why she is given regular opportunities to express her views in the CIA outlet - WaPo..
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
"... "WOW, @foxandfrlends "Dossier is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED." ..."
"... Rooney said the agency – and in particular Peter Strzok, a top FBI agent who was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation – needs to be purged. ..."
"... "I would like to see the directors of those agencies purge it," Rooney said. "And say, look, we've got a lot of great agents, a lot of great lawyers here, those are the people that I want the American people to see and know the good works being done, not these people who are kind of the deep state." ..."
"... On Saturday and Sunday, Trump targeted FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose role in the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server has come under scrutiny because his wife, Jill McCabe, accepted $450,000 in campaign contributions from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's PAC and more than $207,000 from the state Democratic Party when she ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 -- money donated before McCabe was promoted to deputy director. ..."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday asserted that the FBI is "tainted" and it is using a "bogus" dossier alleging ties between his
campaign and Russia to go after him.
"WOW, @foxandfrlends "Dossier is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY
CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED."
And they used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!" Trump tweeted. Trump
seemed to reference a segment from "Fox & Friends," a TV show that the president watches and often praises. GOP Rep. Francis
Rooney on Tuesday also raised doubt about the FBI's intentions. The Florida congressman said during an interview on MSNBC that
the "American people have very high standards" for government agencies and suggested they aren't being met. Rooney said
the agency – and in particular Peter Strzok, a top FBI agent who was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation – needs
to be purged.
"I would like to see the directors of those agencies purge it," Rooney said. "And say, look, we've got a lot of great agents,
a lot of great lawyers here, those are the people that I want the American people to see and know the good works being done, not
these people who are kind of the deep state."
The president's Tuesday tweet followed a series the president posted over the holiday weekend bashing the FBI and its leadership.
On Saturday and Sunday, Trump targeted FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose role in the investigation into former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server has come under scrutiny because his wife, Jill McCabe, accepted $450,000
in campaign contributions from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's PAC and more than $207,000 from the state Democratic Party when she
ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 -- money donated before McCabe was promoted to deputy director.
In two of his weekend tweets, Trump referenced something he saw on Fox News.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3:27 PM-Dec 23, 2017
How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin' James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton
investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton Puppets during
investigation?
Donald J. Trump О @realDonaldTrump 3:30 PM-Dec 23, 2017
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3:32 PM-Dec 23, 2017
Wow, "FBI lawyer James Baker reassigned," according to @FoxNews.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 7:25 AM-Dec 24, 2017
@FoxNews-FBI's Andrew McCabe, "in addition to his wife getting all of this money from M (Clinton Puppet), he was using, allegedly,
his FBI Official Email Account to promote her campaign. You obviously cannot do this. These were the people who were investigating
Hillary Clinton."
McCabe is expected to retire in the new year, according to a Washington Post
report .
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American
Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan
Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of
occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not
targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.
Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in
reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted
a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request
the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail
of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team
Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request .
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its
approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully
complies with paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts
involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated
to review the requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made
by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Michael Rogers, who
had to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause
to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and
violating their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the
hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive
Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA
on its way to the news media is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the
article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in
intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the
attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests
and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the
logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a
nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped
off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her
intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that
would be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only
yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That
would be political targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would
never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on
this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude
or criminal intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious
lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since
these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to,
if not over, those Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was
she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication
contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of
the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader
immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
"Color revolution(s)is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed
in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events
a revolutionary wave .
"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used
nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations,
strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate
democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their
symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly
student activists in organizing creative non-violent
resistance.
"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the
Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's
Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's
Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's
Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the
previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005),
in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but
failed in Iran's Green Revolution
(2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation
or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be
authoritarian ."
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions
are psychosocial operations of deception.
It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend
millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations:
destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows
that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other,
sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive,
so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context
-- they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last
ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear
alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by
that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public
relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each
of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes
and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect,
the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular
one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers
in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents,
local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental
organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets
with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with
the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to
veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading
interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages
gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive)
is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions
of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate
upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more
attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer
this site.
"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand
to judge." --Apothegm of Narada
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
Nice example of how US MSM advertized Steele dossier. No question was asked how Steele how
was expelled from Russia more then 20 years ago and as such is "person non grata" point of contact in
Russia managed to obtain such an information. It was clear that he can't pay for it. He got less
then $200K for the dossier. All you can buy for those money is gossip. But no such questions were
asked in this articles.
Looks like Steele was just a pawn in a much bigger game...
Notable quotes:
"... "Someone like me stays in the shadows," Steele would say, as if apologizing for what he did next. It was an action that went against all his training, all his professional instincts. Spies, after all, keep secrets; they don't disclose them. And now that the F.B.I. had apparently let him down, there was another restraint tugging on his resolve: he didn't know whom he could trust. It was as if he were back operating in the long shadow of the Kremlin, living by what the professionals call "Moscow Rules," where security and vigilance are constant occupational obsessions. But when he considered what was at stake, he knew he had no choice. With Simpson now on board, in effect, as co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator, Steele met with a reporter. ..."
There's a row of Victorian terraced houses on a side street in London's Belgravia district,
each projecting a dowdy respectability with its stone front steps leading to a pair of
alabaster pillars and then a glossy black door. And at 9–11 Grosvenor Gardens there is a
small, rectangular brass plate adjacent to the formidable door. Its dark letters discreetly
announce: ORBIS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, LTD.
By design, the company's title was not very forthcoming. Orbis, of course, is Latin for
"circle" and, by common parlance, "the world." But "intelligence" -- that was more problematic.
Just what sort of international business information was the company dealing in? Advertising?
Accounting? Management consulting?
For a select well-heeled set scattered across the globe, no further explanation was
necessary. Orbis was a player in a burgeoning industry that linked refugees from the worlds of
espionage and journalism to the decision-makers who ran the flat-earth multi-national
corporations and who also, from time to convenient time, dabbled in politics. In their previous
lives, the founding partners of Orbis, trained and nurtured by the Secret Intelligence Service,
had been in the shadowy business of finding out secrets in the name of national interest. Now
they performed more or less the same mission, only they had transferred their allegiance to the
self-interests of the well-paying customers who hired them.
And so, on a warm day last June, Christopher Steele, ex-Cambridge Union president, ex-M.I.6
Moscow field agent, ex-head of M.I.6's Russia desk, ex-adviser to British Special Forces on
capture-or-kill ops in Afghanistan, and a 52-year-old father with four children, a new wife,
three cats, and a sprawling brick-and-wood suburban palace in Surrey, received in his
second-floor office at Orbis a transatlantic call from an old client.
Video: Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest
"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," Steele would recall in an anonymous interview
with Mother Jones, his identity at the time still a carefully guarded secret. But over the next
seven incredible months, as the retired spy hunted about in an old adversary's territory, he
found himself following a trail marked by, as he then put it, "hair-raising" concerns. The
allegations of financial, cyber, and sexual shenanigans would lead to a chilling destination:
the Kremlin had not only, he'd boldly assert in his report, "been cultivating, supporting, and
assisting" Donald Trump for years but also had compromised the tycoon "sufficiently to be able
to blackmail him."
And in the aftermath of the publication of these explosive findings -- as nothing less than
the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was impugned; as congressional hearings
and F.B.I. investigations were announced; as a bombastic president-elect continued to let loose
with indignant tirades about "fake news"; as internal-security agents of the F.S.B., the main
Russian espionage agency, were said to have burst into a meeting of intelligence officers,
placed a bag over the head of the deputy director of its cyber-activities, and marched him off;
as the body of a politically well-connected former F.S.B. general was reportedly found in his
black Lexus -- Christopher Steele had gone to ground.
A CALL TO LONDON
But in the beginning was the telephone call.
In many defining ways, it was as if Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter, and
Christopher Steele, a former intelligence operative, had been born under the same star. Simpson
-- like the onetime spy, according to those who know him -- was the embodiment of the traits
that defined his longtime occupation: tenacity, meticulousness, cynicism, an obsession with
operational secrecy. Also like Steele, who had filed for retirement from the Secret
Intelligence Service in 2009, when he realized an old Russian hand would not get a seat at the
high table in the Age of Terror, Simpson, approaching middle age and in mid-career, had walked
away from journalism at about the same time after nearly 14 years doing political and financial
investigations at The Wall Street Journal. And both men, suddenly footloose but guided by their
training, talents, and character, had gravitated to similar businesses for the second acts of
their careers.
In 2011, Glenn Simpson, along with two other former Journal reporters, launched Fusion GPS,
in Washington, D.C. The firm's activities, according to the terse, purposefully oblique
statement on its Web site, centered on "premium research, strategic intelligence, and due
diligence."
In September 2015, as the Republican primary campaign was heating up, he was hired to
compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump. Who wrote the check? Simpson, always
secretive, won't reveal his client's identity. However, according to a friend who had spoken
with Simpson at the time, the funding came from a "Never Trump" Republican and not directly
from the campaign war chests of any of Trump's primary opponents.
But by mid-June 2016, despite all the revelations Simpson was digging up about the
billionaire's roller-coaster career, two previously unimaginable events suddenly affected both
the urgency and the focus of his research. First, Trump had apparently locked up the
nomination, and his client, more pragmatic than combative, was done throwing good money after
bad. And second, there was a new cycle of disturbing news stories wafting around Trump as the
wordy headline splashed across the front page of The Washington Post on June 17 heralded,
INSIDE TRUMP'S FINANCIAL TIES TO RUSSIA AND HIS UNUSUAL FLATTERY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.
Simpson, as fellow journalists remembered, smelled fresh red meat. And anyway, after all he
had discovered, he'd grown deeply concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency. So he found
Democratic donors whose checks would keep his oppo research going strong. And he made a call to
London, to a partner at Orbis he had worked with in the past, an ex-spy who knew where all the
bodies were buried in Russia, and who, as the wags liked to joke, had even buried some of
them.
Oleg Erovinkin (inset), a former F.S.B. general and ally of Putin confidant Igor Sechin
(below, right), was a suspected source of Steele's; Erovinkin was found dead in his car in
December.
PERSONS OF INTEREST Oleg Erovinkin (inset), a former F.S.B. general and ally of Putin
confidant Igor Sechin (below, right), was a suspected source of Steele's; Erovinkin was found
dead in his car in December.
'Are there business ties in Russia?" That, Steele would offer to Mother Jones, was the bland
initial thrust of his investigation after he was subcontracted by Fusion for a fee estimated by
a source in the trade to be within the profession's going rate: $12,000 to $15,000 a month,
plus expenses.
Steele had known Russia as a young spy, arriving in Moscow as a 26-year-old with his new
wife and thin diplomatic cover in 1990. For nearly three years as a secret agent in enemy
territory, he lived through the waning days of perestroika and witnessed the tumultuous
disintegration of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin's mercurial and often boozy leadership.
The K.G.B. was onto him almost from the start: he inhabited the spy's uncertain life, where at
any moment the lurking menace could turn into genuine danger. Yet even at the tail end of his
peripatetic career at the service, Russia, the battleground of his youth, was still in his
blood and on his operational mind: from 2004 to 2009 he headed M.I.6's Russia Station, the
London deskman directing Her Majesty's covert penetration of Putin's resurgent motherland.
And so, as Steele threw himself into his new mission, he could count on an army of sources
whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years. There was no safe way
he could return to Russia to do the actual digging; the vengeful F.S.B. would be watching him
closely. But no doubt he had a working relationship with knowledgeable contacts in London and
elsewhere in the West, from angry émigrés to wheeling-and-dealing oligarchs
always eager to curry favor with a man with ties to the Secret Service, to political dissidents
with well-honed axes to grind. And, perhaps most promising of all, he had access to the
networks of well-placed Joes -- to use the jargon of his former profession -- he'd directed
from his desk at London Station, assets who had their eyes and ears on the ground in
Russia.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with
Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian
Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was "a former top level intelligence officer still active in
the Kremlin." And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a trusted compatriot," would claim
that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.
Source E was "an ethnic Russian" and "close associate of Republican US presidential
candidate Donald Trump."
This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot," the talkative Source E "admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." Then this: "The
Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform." And finally: "In return the
Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to
raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away
from Ukraine."
Then there was Source D, "a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his
recent trips to Moscow," and Source F, "a female staffer" at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel, who
was co-opted into the network by an Orbis "ethnic Russian operative" working hand in hand with
the loquacious Trump insider, Source E.
These two sources told quite a lurid story, the now infamous "golden showers" allegation,
which, according to the dossier, was corroborated by others in his alphabet list of assets. It
was an evening's entertainment, Steele, the old Russian hand, must have suspected, that had to
have been produced by the ever helpful F.S.B. And since it was typical of Moscow Center's
handwriting to have the suite wired up for sound and video (the hotel's Web site, with
unintentional irony, boasts of its "cutting edge technological amenities"), Steele apparently
began to suspect that locked in a Kremlin safe was a hell of a video, as well as
photographs.
Steele's growing file must have left his mind cluttered with new doubts, new suspicions. And
now, as he continued his chase, a sense of alarm hovered about the former spy. If Steele's
sources were right, Putin had up his sleeve kompromat -- Moscow Center's gleeful word for
compromising material -- that would make the Access Hollywood exchange between Trump and Billy
Bush seem, as Trump insisted, as banal as "locker-room talk." Steele could only imagine how and
when the Russians might try to use it.
THE GREATER GOOD
What should he do? Steele dutifully filed his first incendiary report with Fusion on June 20,
but was this the end of his responsibilities? He knew that what he had unearthed, he'd say in
his anonymous conversation with Mother Jones, "was something of huge significance, way above
party politics." Yet was it simply a vanity to think that a retired spy had to take it on his
shoulders to save the world? And what about his contractual agreement with Simpson? Could the
company sue, he no doubt wondered, if he disseminated information he'd collected on its
dime?
In the end, Steele found the rationale that is every whistle-blower's sustaining philosophy:
the greater good trumps all other concerns. And so, even while he kept working his sources in
the field and continued to shoot new memos to Simpson, he settled on a plan of covert
action.
THE MEMOS BY THE FORMER SPY "BECAME ONE OF WASHINGTON'S WORST-KEPT SECRETS."
The F.B.I.'s Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad -- "Move Over, Mafia," the bureau's P.R.
machine crowed after the unit had been created -- was a particularly gung-ho team with whom
Steele had done some heady things in the past. And in the course of their successful
collaboration, the hard-driving F.B.I. agents and the former frontline spy evolved into a
chummy mutual-admiration society.
It was only natural, then, that when he began mulling whom to turn to, Steele thought about
his tough-minded friends on the Eurasian squad. And fortuitously, he discovered, as his scheme
took on a solid operational commitment, that one of the agents was now assigned to the bureau
office in Rome. By early August, a copy of his first two memos were shared with the F.B.I.'s
man in Rome.
"Shock and horror" -- that, Steele would say in his anonymous interview, was the bureau's
reaction to the goodies he left on its doorstep. And it wanted copies of all his subsequent
reports, the sooner the better.
His duty done, Steele waited with anxious anticipation for the official consequences.
FROM THE SHADOWS
There were none. Or at least not any public signs that the F.B.I. was tracking down the ripe
leads he'd offered. And in the weeks that followed, as summer turned into fall and the election
drew closer, Steele's own sense of the mounting necessity of his mission must have
intensified.
As his frustration grew, the mysterious trickle from WikiLeaks of the Democratic National
Committee's and John Podesta's purloined e-mails were continuing in a deliberate, steadily
ominous flow. He had little doubt the Kremlin was behind the hacking, and he had shared his
evidence with the F.B.I., but as best he could tell, the bureau was focusing on solving the
legalistic national-security puzzle surrounding Hillary Clinton's e-mails. With so much hanging
in the balance -- the potential president of the United States possibly being under Russia's
thumb -- why weren't the authorities more concerned? He decided it was time for desperate
measures.
"Someone like me stays in the shadows," Steele would say, as if apologizing for what he
did next. It was an action that went against all his training, all his professional instincts.
Spies, after all, keep secrets; they don't disclose them. And now that the F.B.I. had
apparently let him down, there was another restraint tugging on his resolve: he didn't know
whom he could trust. It was as if he were back operating in the long shadow of the Kremlin,
living by what the professionals call "Moscow Rules," where security and vigilance are constant
occupational obsessions. But when he considered what was at stake, he knew he had no choice.
With Simpson now on board, in effect, as co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator, Steele met
with a reporter.
In early October, on a trip to New York, Steele sat down with David Corn, the 58-year-old
Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones. It was a prudent choice. Corn, who had measured out a
career breaking big stories and who had won a George Polk Award in the process, could be
imperious, a ruthless man in a ruthless profession, but he was also a man of his word. If he
agreed to protect a source, his commitment was unshakable. Steele's identity would be safe with
him.
Related Video: Vladimir Putin's Impact on the 2016 Election
Corn accepted the terms, listened, and then went to work. He began to investigate, trying to
get a handle on Steele's credibility from people in the intelligence community. And all the
while the clock was ticking: the election was just a month away. On October 31, in what one of
Corn's colleagues would describe as "a Hail Mary pass," he broke a judicious, expurgated
version of the story -- "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian
Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump."
But in the tidal wave of headlines and breaking news in the weeks before the election, the
story got swamped. It was, after all, the silly season. First, the F.B.I. exonerated Hillary
Clinton over possible charges involving an insecure e-mail server. Then, 11 days before the
election, F.B.I. director James Comey said, in effect, not so fast. Perhaps, he announced
gravely, there was a smoking gun on the computer belonging to, of all improbable individuals,
disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. The press swarmed to the story. And attention was
busily paid to the final jabs the two candidates were taking at each other. There were simply
too many unsubstantiated claims in Corn's story for other journalists to check out, and the
fact that the primary source was an unnamed former spook, well, that didn't make the
reportorial challenges less daunting.
In early November, Corn shared a bit of what he knew with Julian Borger, of The Guardian.
And Simpson, during a sandwich lunch with Paul Wood in the BBC's Washington radio studio,
reached into his briefcase and handed over to the British journalist a redacted version of
Steele's initial report. It wasn't long before, as The New York Times would write, the memos by
the former spy "became one of Washington's worst-kept secrets, as reporters . . . scrambled to
confirm or disprove them."
Then, on November 8, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.
Within hours of the president-elect's victory speech, Vladimir Putin went on Russian state
television to offer his congratulations. And the Popular Front, a political movement founded by
the Russian president, slyly tweeted, "They say that Putin once again beat all."
MOSCOW RULES
On a bright autumn weekend in late November in Nova Scotia, about 300 deep thinkers -- a
collection of academics, government officials, corporate executives, and journalists from 70
countries -- settled in for a couple of ruminative days at the annual Halifax International
Security Forum. There were cocktail parties, elaborate dinners, a five-K run, a seemingly
endless schedule of weighty discussion groups, and nearly constant feverish chatter about the
new, improbable American president-elect.
It was at some point in this busy weekend that Senator John McCain and David J. Kramer, a
former State Department official whose bailiwick was Russia and who now toils at Arizona State
University's Washington-based McCain Institute for International Leadership, found themselves
huddling with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Russia.
Sir Andrew, 77, had served in Moscow for five years starting in 1995, a no-holds-barred time
when Putin was aggressively consolidating power. And in London Station, the M.I.6 puppeteer
pulling all the clandestine strings was Christopher Steele. Sir Andrew knew Steele well and
liked what he knew. And the former diplomat, who always had a few tough words to say about
Putin, had heard the rumors about Steele's memo.
Had Sir Andrew arrived in Halifax on his own covert mission? Was it just an accident that
his conversation with Senator McCain happened to meander its way to the findings in Steele's
memos? Or are there no accidents in international intrigue? Sir Andrew offered no comment to
Vanity Fair. He did, however, tell the Independent newspaper, "The issue of Donald Trump and
Russia was very much in the news and it was natural to talk about it." And he added, "We spoke
about how Mr. Trump may find himself in a position where there could be an attempt to blackmail
him with kompromat." Any further answers remain buried in the secret history of this affair.
Neither McCain nor Kramer would comment on the specifics of the meeting; all that can be firmly
established is that McCain and Kramer listened with a growing attentiveness to Sir Andrew's
summary of what was purportedly in these reports -- and the two men came to realize they had to
see them with their own eyes. Kramer, the good soldier, volunteered to retrieve them.
On an evening about a week later, using a ticket purchased with miles from his own account,
Kramer flew out of Washington and landed early the next morning at Heathrow. Once on the
ground, as per stern instructions, he operated on Moscow Rules. Told to meet a man loitering
outside baggage claim holding a copy of the Financial Times, Kramer engaged in an exchange of
word code. At last satisfied, Christopher Steele whisked him off in a Land Rover to the
security of his house in Surrey.
They talked for hours. And Steele passed him his report. Was this the identical, somewhat
sputtering 35-page memo that had already been making the rounds among reporters? Or, as some
intelligence analysts believe, was it a longer, more expertly crafted and sourced document, the
final work product of a well-trained M.I.6 senior deskman? Neither McCain nor Kramer would
comment, but what is known is that Kramer flew back to Washington that same night, guarding his
hard-won prize with his life.
On December 9, McCain sat in the office of F.B.I. director James Comey and, with no other
aides present, handed him the typed pages that could bring about the downfall of a president.
Afterward, the senator would issue a statement that amounted to little more than a hapless
shrug, and a disingenuous one to boot: he had been "unable to make a judgment about their
accuracy" and so he'd simply passed them on.
But there were consequences. In the waning days of the Obama administration, both the
president and congressional leaders were briefed on the contents of the Steele memos. And in
early January, at the end of an intelligence briefing at Trump Tower on Russia's interference
in the presidential election conducted by the nation's top four intelligence officials, the
president-elect was presented with a two-page summary of Steele's allegations.
And with that mind-boggling moment as a news peg, the dominoes began to fall with resounding
thuds. First, BuzzFeed, full of journalistic justifications, posted the entire 35-page report
online. Then The Wall Street Journal outed Christopher Steele as the former British
intelligence officer who had authored the Trump dossier. And next Steele, who in his previous
life had directed the service's inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former
F.S.B. officer who was fatally poisoned by a dose of radioactive polonium-210, quickly gathered
up his family, asked a neighbor to look after his three cats, and headed off as fast as he
could to parts unknown -- only to return nearly two months later to his office, refusing to say
little more than that he was "pleased to be back." His arrival was, in its guarded way, as
mysterious as his disappearance.
WORLD OF DOUBTS
'Walking back the cat" is how those in the trade refer to the process of trying to resolve the
bottom-line question in any piece of intelligence: Is it true?
And against the unsettling background of the early months of the Trump administration, the
nation's intelligence analysts -- as well as eager journalists and just plain concerned
citizens -- have been grappling with whether or not the allegations in Steele's report are
accurate.
There are certainly items in the dossier that would leave any burrower shaking his head. The
allegation that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, had traveled to Prague last August for a
clandestine meet with Kremlin officials appears false, as Cohen insists he has never been to
Prague. And the repeated misspelling of the name of Alfa Bank -- the largest privately owned
commercial bank in Russia -- as "Alpha Bank" does little to reinforce the report's
unsubstantiated charges of the bank's illicit cash payoffs.
But some things do tally. CNN has reported that U.S. intelligence intercepts of
conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian nationals occurred on the same
day and from the same locations cited in the memos. And the Trump campaign engineered, as one
early memo warned, a Republican platform that steadfastly refused to give lethal defensive
weapons to troops in Ukraine fighting the Russian-led intervention.
A grim case can also be made that the Russians are taking the memos seriously. Oleg
Erovinkin -- a former F.S.B. general and a key aide to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime
minister who now heads Rosneft, the giant Russian oil company, and whose name is scattered with
incriminating innuendo through several memos -- was found dead in his car the day after
Christmas. The F.S.B., according to Russian press reports, "launched a large-scale
investigation," but no official cause of death has been announced. Was this the price Erovinkin
paid for having apparent similarities to Steele's Source B, "a former top level intelligence
officer still active in the Kremlin"? And, no less ominous, after both Steele and U.S.
intelligence officials made their cases for the Kremlin's involvement in the election hackings,
the F.S.B. arrested two officers in the agency's cyber-wing and one computer security expert,
charging them with treason. Were these three the sources that Steele relied on?
Further supporting evidence of Steele's claims can perhaps also be found in the press
reports of ongoing federal investigations. Three members of the Trump election team were
mentioned in the dossier for their alleged ties to Russian officials -- Paul Manafort, the
former campaign chairman; Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a
longtime ad hoc adviser. All are under investigation, but no charges have been filed, and all
three men have vehemently denied any wrongdoing. And according to The Washington Post, the
F.B.I. in the weeks before the election grew so interested in the contents of the dossier that
the bureau entered into a series of conversations with Steele to discuss hiring him to continue
his research. Once the report became public, however, the discussions ended, and Steele was
never compensated.
But ultimately, in any examination of the veracity of an intelligence report, professionals
weigh the messenger as heavily as the news. Steele's credentials were the real thing and,
apparently, impressive enough to scare the hell out of James Clapper, the director of national
intelligence, James Comey, John Brennan, the C.I.A. director, and Admiral Mike Rogers, the
N.S.A. director. How else can one explain their collective decision to pass on the
still-unverified dossier to the president and the president-elect?
Finally, but not least, there is Steele's own tacit but still eloquent testimony. Retired
spies don't go to ground, taking their families with them, unless they have a damned good
reason.
IN FROM THE COLD
Time to think is dangerous. And with the new president now ensconced in the White House, a man
whose actions and reputation remain tangled up in a morass of disturbing speculations, the
nation has, in effect, gone to ground, too. The concerns and questions escalate day after
troubling day. With an intelligence community fighting its own secret war against a president
who has time after time vilified it, the answers may soon be revealed. But for now all the
nation can do is wait with tense anticipation for the congressional and intelligence-agency
investigations to play out, for the high-stakes chase started by a lone ex-spy to move forward
toward its conclusion and into history, for the clarity that will tell the American people it's
finally safe to come in from the cold.
indiescene, 1/2/2017 5:53 PM EST
Politicians encourage broad surveillance instead of investing in intelligence and analysis. Investing in staff and
cutting-edge analysis would be infinitely smarter than collecting ever more data.
indiescene, 1/2/2017 5:11 PM EST
Why does the President ignore calls to pardon Clinton / Snowden?
adelphean70, 12/30/2016 5:39 PM EST
Did the Russians actually tweet a picture of a duck with the word LAME in front of it?
What a bunch of outrageous speculations. And not a single attempt to question the motives
behind the dossier (money paid)
Steele was kicked out of Russia more then 20 years ago. He does not know the language. All he
can be is a patsy for some more powerful and sinister forces. What contact he could have in
Russia? He is exposed MI6 agent and as such a "person non grata" in Russia and any contacts with
him are toxic. Even "liberasts" (Russian neoliberals; the most pro-Western part of Russian society) would think twice before communicating with
him.
Notable quotes:
"... "I know him as a very competent, professional operator who left the secret service and is now operating his own private company," Andrew Wood, Britain's ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000, told the BBC on Friday. "I do not think he would make things up. I don't think he would, necessarily, always draw correct judgment, but that's not the same thing." ..."
"... Although Steele wasn't a senior figure in MI6, one of the officials said because of Steele's experience on the Russia desk and the high-level contacts he had during his time in Moscow, ..."
"... The material, they said, was more likely to have come from conversations with third parties. ..."
"... Wood said it seems unlikely that Russian operatives intentionally lied to Steele. He added that it is not surprising that he has gone into hiding. ..."
"... James Hudson, Britain's former deputy counsel in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, resigned in 2009 after a film emerged showing him with two women thought to be prostitutes. More recently, Britain was involved in a diplomatic flap after a former official under then-Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that British authorities had rigged up a fake rock in Moscow to spy on Russians. ..."
LONDON -- Christopher Steele, the one-time British spy who has compiled an explosive dossier
on President-elect Donald Trump, is a well-regarded operative who wouldn't make up stories to
satisfy his clients, according to diplomatic and intelligence experts who know him.
Steele, 52, worked for MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, and served in Moscow in
the early 1990s. After leaving the agency, he and a partner started Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd. in 2009. The firm provides strategic advice, gathers intelligence and conducts
cross-border investigations, according to its website.
Steele produced the memo containing unsubstantiated claims that Russia had compromising
personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, CBS News' Major Garrett reported. Orbis was
originally hired by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm working for an unknown
client.
"I know him as a very competent, professional operator who left the secret service and
is now operating his own private company," Andrew Wood, Britain's ambassador to Russia from
1995 to 2000, told the BBC on Friday. "I do not think he would make things up. I don't think
he would, necessarily, always draw correct judgment, but that's not the same thing."
... ... ...
Wood said U.S. Sen. John McCain asked him about the document during a security conference in
November because of Wood's relationship with Steele. After their conversation, McCain made
arrangements to get a copy of the report, Wood told the BBC.
Wood is now an associate fellow at the think tank Chatham House and is a consultant for
companies with interests in Russia.
Three British intelligence officers interviewed by The Associated Press described Steele as
well regarded in the intelligence community, with excellent Russian skills and high-level
sources.
Although Steele wasn't a senior figure in MI6, one of the officials said because of
Steele's experience on the Russia desk and the high-level contacts he had during his time in
Moscow, he was brought in to help with the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the former
Russian secret service officer and Kremlin critic who was poisoned in 2006 in London by
polonium-210, a radioactive substance. The official, who worked primarily on Eastern Europe,
said he had no other details of Steele's involvement in the case.
James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, told the AP that parts
of the document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services." "Some of
the practices which we know and which are confirmed to have happened during Soviet and
post-Soviet times are reported in this dossier," Nixey said, adding that Russia's denials were
also part of a Cold War pattern in which the Kremlin "would outright deny something which is
quite plainly true." All three of the former intelligence officials, however, cast doubt on
whether the material in the report and its level of detail would have come from active sources
within Russia. The material, they said, was more likely to have come from conversations
with third parties.
Wood said it seems unlikely that Russian operatives intentionally lied to Steele. He
added that it is not surprising that he has gone into hiding.
"Russia would certainly like to know where he got his information from, assuming his
information is basically true and he hasn't just made it up, which I don't think for a
moment," Wood said. "And they're accustomed to take action."
Still, British and Russian intelligence agents have a long history of spying on one another
and setting traps.
James Hudson, Britain's former deputy counsel in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg,
resigned in 2009 after a film emerged showing him with two women thought to be prostitutes.
More recently, Britain was involved in a diplomatic flap after a former official under
then-Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that British authorities had rigged up a fake rock in
Moscow to spy on Russians.
Nixey said Moscow is unlikely to have changed its habits "for the simple reason that the
Russians believe they are at war with the West." Anyone, he said, with a "considerable degree
of involvement with Russia, goes there frequently on business, is going to be looked at, to a
greater or lesser extent."
Russians have even coined a word for this type of compromising material: kompromat.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
Former FBI Director James Comey is in meltdown mode after his good buddy, the Deputy
Director of the FBI Andy McCabe, just "spilled the beans" to the House Intelligence Committee.
It was a "closed door" hearing, but we now have evidence that you need to know. McCabe
incriminated his pals, and that's really bad news for Comey. Immediately, Comey sent out a
cryptic message to President Donald Trump as he sees his life crumbling before him.
Source:
Comey Panics & Sends Message To Trump After His FBI Buddy Andy McCabe 'Spills The Beans'
https://goo.gl/2oK75n
What do you think of this video? Let us know in the comments below, and in addition, share
this on social media.
Don't let them get you down: "We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all
before us, and with just as much apparent reason." Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1830)
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
(VIDEO) There is a provable corruption at high level of FBI and group of high level official which
engaged in constant and deliberate undermining the rule of law and enforce their opinion on
American people.
Newt Gingrich says they're all going to jail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Fox
News' Sean Hannity called the spying on President Trump and the cover-up of Hillary Clinton's
wrongdoing one of the worst breaches of our justice system ever
I recently read Ed Klein's book All Out War. It took the Obama admin 3 attempts to finally
get the FISA warrant which they used to spy on Trump for oppo research. Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett were for it. Michelle was against
As a Clinton campaign project, the campaign was obligated to report the expenditure on
their FEC report. Which they did not. That is another un processed crime
Clinton is the one who could shoot someone in NYC and get away with it.
I'm no Newt Gingrich fan. He is a top globalist, (or was) The former college professor is
one of the most intelligent observers out there. It's well worth hearing what Newt has to say
in this Hannity interview. He says the corruption is unprecedented and they are all going to
jail!
An insurance policy is a sure thing . When I hear 'insurance policy' in this context being
discussed by these supremely arrogant, venal fucks in McCabe's office, what comes to my mind
is thoughts of vote fixing . Trump's 'rigged system'. Put 'em all - McCabe, Strzok, Page,
Priestap, Comey, and whomever else, under oath and find out the precise nature of the
'insurance policy' they were discussing, and what Strzok meant by 'many levels'.
Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who is the man in the middle of
the entire Russiagate scandal, boasted on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if
it weren't for her husband.
A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous
dossier suggests that central elements of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British
ex-spy Christopher Steele's top-secret "sources" in the Russian government -- which are
unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control -- but from a series of stories
that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street
Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed
Manhattan real estate millionaire. Understanding the origins of the "Steele dossier" is
especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what
its supporters would hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected
president of the United States.
...
In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby claimed
that her husband deserves the lion's share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not replied to
repeated requests for comment.)
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in
exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump," Jacoby wrote. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the
investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it goes directly to the
nature of what became known as the "Steele dossier," on which the Russiagate narrative is
founded.
The Gateway Pundit reports that the news of the Facebook post comes amid heightened
scrutiny for the opposition research firm.
According to Fox News reporter Jake Gibson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called on a
senior Justice Department attorney to look into appointing a special counsel to investigate
recently demoted official Bruce Ohr's contacts with Fusion GPS.
"Sessions on calls for a special counsel to look into Sr DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, and wife
Nellie's contacts with Fusion GPS during the summer and fall of 2016: I've put a Senior
Attorney, with the resources he may need, to review cases in our office and make a
recommendation to me, if things aren't being pursued that need to be pursued, if cases may
need more resources to complete in a proper manner, and to recommend to me if the standards
for a special counsel are met, and the recommended one should be established," tweeted Fox
News reporter Jake Gibson on Tuesday.
Fox News ' James Rosen and Jake Gibson recently reported the wife of Justice Department
official Bruce G. Ohr worked for the opposition research firm during the 2016 presidential
election.
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G.
Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's
duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a
review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on
Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS
through the summer and fall of 2016.
In a statement to Fox News, a Justice Department spokesperson noted that
"It is unusual for anyone to wear two hats as he has done recently. This person is going
to go back to a single focus - director of our organized crime and drug enforcement unit. As
you know, combatting transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking is a top
priority for the Attorney General."
I'm pretty sure Section II out lines all of this! Granted it was replaced by the 1918
Sedition Act but the premis is still there!
SEDITION ACT.
An act in addition to the act intituled, "An act for the punishment of certain crimes
against the United States ."
[Approved July 14, 1798.]
ABSTRACT.
SECTION I. Punishes combinations against United States government.
1. Definition of offence:
Unlawfully to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of
the United States, &c. This section was not complained of.
2. Grade of offence:
A high misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $5000, and imprisonment six months to five years.
SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings .
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false,
scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either
House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt
or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or
to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to
resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years
"... So these individuals should be questioned about what was meant by the phrase "insurance policy." There is no need to speculate on the meaning of that phrase... as this author does. Direct inquiry of these individuals must be conducted and if they are not fully forthcoming with answers they should be terminated by the executive branch immediately. It will take some cooperation between the branches of government but it is necessary. And if anyone has been unfaithful to their office they should lose their retirement benefits too. that is the only way we can stop this crap from happening again. ..."
When you are in such a high office you do not have the liberty of claiming the Fifth. Anyone
in office, at or near the level of McCabe's position, who refuses to answer questions should be
terminated on the spot. No further need to elaborate. And the interrogation should be conducted
in public lest we lose faith in assinine-appearing-individuals we call our congress men and
women.
Why should we trust a committee to interrogate in private and then deliver a consensus
opinion of the interrogation when there is so little trust in government? All testimony should
be public... let the public determine the truth in these matters. The verdict can be rendered
in the next election.
So these individuals should be questioned about what was meant by the phrase "insurance
policy." There is no need to speculate on the meaning of that phrase... as this author does.
Direct inquiry of these individuals must be conducted and if they are not fully forthcoming
with answers they should be terminated by the executive branch immediately. It will take some
cooperation between the branches of government but it is necessary. And if anyone has been
unfaithful to their office they should lose their retirement benefits too. that is the only way
we can stop this crap from happening again.
Set an example!
Why are we fooling around with these issues. Unelected individuals are striking at the heart
of our government. Who is in control here? if the allegations against Strzok regarding a
meeting in McCabe's office are true then a crime has been committed.
This is your turn to cleanse the government President Trump. Keep Twittering. I have faith
in you.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... we have email evidence from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. ..."
"... he had a very small group of people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States ..."
Friday on FNC's "America's Newsroom," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said a congressional committee had evidence FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe indicated Hillary Clinton was going to get an "HQ special" regarding the investigation of her unauthorized email server and
ties to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state.
Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, described the circumstances at the FBI regarding the investigation as "extreme
pro-Hillary Clinton bias."
"The Judiciary Committee is engaged in an investigation, particularly as it relates to the handling of the Hillary Clinton
email scandal and any potential investigations of the Clinton Foundation and the handling of bribes or other types of improper
payments," Gaetz said. "I can certainly say that my impression after these interviews is that there was extreme pro-Hillary Clinton
bias that benefitted her in this investigation and that she received special treatment as a consequence of her candidacy for president.
That shouldn't happen. The law should apply equally to all Americans whether they're political candidates or not. And so, we need
to institute reforms through the Judiciary Committee for more oversight, for more transparency so that this never happens again."
He went on explain that it was the committee's intention to find out if there was a departure from standard "procedures."
"[O]ur view is we need to find out if whether or not the procedures were departed from," he added. "And we have email evidence
from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. That meant that
the normal processes of the Washington field office weren't followed and he had a special. And he had a very small group of
people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have
been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the
same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States."
McCabe, who has been the target of Republican critics for more than a year, spent hours in
Congress this past week, facing questions behind closed doors from members of three
committees.
Republicans said they were dissatisfied with his answers:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has
called for McCabe's ouster, saying he "ought to go for reasons of being involved in some of
the things that took place in the previous administration. We want to make sure that there's
not undue political influence within the FBI -- the [Justice] Department and the
FBI."
He and Peter Strzok were two principal people have been involved in
He has also been deeply involved in the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the potential
involvement of the Trump campaign
The US president, Donald Trump , has again questioned
the impartiality of the deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who is planning to retire from the bureau in the months ahead
after being buffeted by attacks over alleged anti-Trump bias in the agency.
In a tweet on Saturday, the president wrote: "How can FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin' James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including
her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?"
... ... ...
From his South Florida home, where he is spending the holidays, Trump also tweeted that McCabe "is racing the clock to retire
with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!".
Could be questioned: Two House committees are to make formal requests to interview Lisa
Page, Strzok's FBI lawyer lover, after their exchange of anti-Trump texts was revealed
But the political storm the lovers have created is huge.
On Tuesday Strzok's boss Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI Director, was questioned for hours by
the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors.
McCabe is also facing demands from two other House committees that he answer questions on
the Clinton probe in the wake of the texts being revealed.
The chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the Oversight Committee,
Trey Gowdy, have requested transcribed interviews with him, CNBC reported.
They have also asked for a formal interview with Page, a registered Democrat who texted
Strzok: 'God Trump is a loathsome human.'
... ... ...
The two lovers' texts had detailed their contempt for Trump and backing for Clinton, who
Strzok had played a key role in clearing.
Strzok is reported to have been the official who changed a draft of then FBI Director James
Comey's statement describing Clinton's conduct.
He is said to have removed the term 'grossly negligent' – language that mirrors the
criminal code – to the softer words 'extremely careless', which does not rise to the
level at which a criminal charge can be brought.
He also played a part in clearing her two closest associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills,
of lying to the FBI despite their evidence in a formal interview being at odds with emails they
had sent.
The email probe included interviews with several senior Clinton aides including lawyer Mills
and chief of staff Abedin.
Mills and Abedin both denied knowing of Clinton's unorthodox email server setup, according
to summaries of their interviews that the Bureau released last year.
'Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton's [State
Department] tenure. Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time,'
one agent's interview notes read.
And Abedin told agents, they wrote, that she 'did not know that Clinton had a private server
until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.'
But in emails released by the State Department, Mills and Abedin both referred to Clinton's
server specifically. Lying to the FBI is a federal felony, but charges were not brought against
either woman.
... ... ...
Strzok was removed from the Mueller team in August because of the texts, while Page had
already left before they emerged.
" God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0"
Strzok to Page
But their existence was never disclosed and the affair was revealed early in December by the
Washington Post.
... ... ...
The texts included a lengthy exchange in early March in which Page - a registered Democrat -
told her lover: 'God Trump is loathsome human.'
Page replied 'Omg he's an idiot' and Page said: 'He's awful', prompting Strzok to say:
'America will get what the voting public deserves.'
" F TRUMP"
Strzok to Page
In the same exchange Strzok said: 'God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.'
At the time the Clinton email probe was in full swing and Strzok was a key figure in it,
under the direct supervision of Comey. Strzok also appears to have updated Page on the state of
the Clinton investigation. In June he texted her: 'Now we're talking about Clinton, and how a
lot of people are holding their breath, hoping.' And in July, after Comey announced that
Clinton would not be prosecuted he texted her: 'F TRUMP.'
That prompted her to reply: 'And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're
meant to protect the country from that menace.'
He texted her: 'Thanks. It's absolutely true that we're both very fortunate. And of course
I'll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our
country at many levels, not sure if that helps'.
But the text which has caused the most concern in Trump circles is one Strzok sent about an
'insurance policy' discussed at a meeting which Page and Strzok attended with McCabe, then
Comey's deputy.
" It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40"
Strzok to Page
'I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that
there's no way he gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ' he texted her in August
2016.
Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has demanded that the deputy
attorney general hand over any other messages, emails or documents which would explain what
Strzok meant.
He also asked for details of what Strzok meant when he said: 'we text on that phone when we
talk about hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now.'
"... as he made the point at the end about the RINOs, the DNC, the deep state and FBI all working in concert to defeat him and President Trump won anyway, all I could think of is that before this is all over they will be pointing to that massive illegal conspiracy as the "smoking gun" evidence that proves that he must have had outside help to win the election. ..."
"... "We had the dirtiest, most evil, most experienced traitors in the political sphere illegally using the entire US federal law enforcement apparatus to destroy him and cover it up...the only people who could have been more criminal than that and caused him to prevail is THE RUSSIANS!" ..."
as he made the point at the end
about the RINOs, the DNC, the deep state and FBI all working in concert to defeat him and
President Trump won anyway, all I could think of is that before this is all over they will
be pointing to that massive illegal conspiracy as the "smoking gun" evidence that proves
that he must have had outside help to win the election.
"We had the dirtiest, most evil, most experienced traitors in the political sphere
illegally using the entire US federal law enforcement apparatus to destroy him and cover it
up...the only people who could have been more criminal than that and caused him to
prevail is THE RUSSIANS!"
The Gateway Pundit reports that the news of the Facebook post comes amid heightened
scrutiny for the opposition research firm. According to Fox News reporter Jake Gibson,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called on a senior Justice Department attorney to look into
appointing a special counsel to investigate recently demoted official Bruce Ohr's contacts with
Fusion GPS.
"Sessions on calls for a special counsel to look into Sr DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, and wife
Nellie's contacts with Fusion GPS during the summer and fall of 2016: I've put a Senior
Attorney, with the resources he may need, to review cases in our office and make a
recommendation to me, if things aren't being pursued that need to be pursued, if cases may
need more resources to complete in a proper manner, and to recommend to me if the standards
for a special counsel are met, and the recommended one should be established," tweeted
Fox News reporter Jake Gibson on Tuesday.
Fox News ' James Rosen and Jake Gibson recently reported the wife of Justice
Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for the opposition research firm during the 2016
presidential election.
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G.
Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's
duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a
review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on
Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS
through the summer and fall of 2016.
In a statement to Fox News, a Justice Department spokesperson noted that
"It is unusual for anyone to wear two hats as he has done recently. This person is going
to go back to a single focus -- director of our organized crime and drug enforcement unit. As
you know, combatting transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking is a top
priority for the Attorney General."
"... Steele's admission that his now infamous dossier (that has spun the US into complete Russia hysteria) is based on information that is not "verified" (in other words made up rumors), comes moments after Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, posted on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if it weren't for her husband. ..."
"... So why is this information not splashed across MSM is the rhetorical question. The damage is done with the intended smears. A fait accomplit, ..."
Ex-British spy behind Fusion GPS dossier admits it contains "Limited Intelligence". Former
British spy Christopher Steele, who was tasked with compiling the 'Trump dossier' for
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, admitted in court that the discredited document contains
"limited intelligence."
"
While Mr. Steele stated matter-of-factly in his dossier that collusion between Mr. Trump and
the Russian government took place, he called it only "possible" months later in court filings.
While he confidently referred to "trusted" sources inside the Kremlin, in court he referred to
the dossier's "limited intelligence." [ ]
In court filings this year, Mr. Steele doesn't sound as confident as his dossier. He
answered questions through his attorney in a libel complaint brought by a Russian entrepreneur,
Aleksej Gubarev. Mr. Steele has accused Mr. Gubarev of being pressured by Russian's FSB
intelligence service to take part in hacking against the Democratic Party.
In one answer, Mr. Steele refers to the intelligence he gathered as "limited." On the charge
of collusion by Mr. Trump and his campaign advisers, he now says there was only "possible
coordination."
"The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to
represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of
allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security
implications," Steele wrote.
"Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received."
Steele's admission that his now infamous dossier (that has spun the US into complete
Russia hysteria) is based on information that is not "verified" (in other words made up
rumors), comes moments after Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, posted
on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if it weren't for her husband.
Tablet Magazine reports
"In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby
claimed that her husband deserves the lion's share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not
replied to repeated requests for comment.)
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in
exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump," Jacoby wrote. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the
investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it goes directly to the
nature of what became known as the "Steele dossier," on which the Russiagate narrative is
founded.
This involved limited intelligence in more ways than one.
A ndré De Koning • 3 minutes ago
Limited IQ: meaning subnormal level of intelligence, bordering level "moron".
It was "received" by an agency with even more limited IQ as the document would have been
declared "not receivable" by anybody who can read the Daily Telegraph or other Murdoch "news"
papers.
Diagnosis of the US Intelligence Agencies is not so high all of a sudden if they can
manipulate (this where the IQ goes up a notch or two). If the DOJ has a slightly higher IQ or
reaches the normal level of IQ=100, one might be lucky.
Gano1 • 12 hours ago
Former Ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood was the go-between.
Guy • 14 hours ago
So why is this information not splashed across MSM is the rhetorical question. The
damage is done with the intended smears. A fait accomplit, so move on is the only answer
.
"... "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future. ..."
"... The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller. ..."
"... A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election. ..."
Last year, the marionettes rebelled. Naturally, the Great Puppeteer Counter-revolt of
2017 followed.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that
out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special
counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That
Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and
something needs to be done for the good of the future. "
Leaving aside the imprudence of the president firing the man investigating his campaign's
alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump certainly possesses the right
to dismiss Mueller. Unelected people who work for the man elected president do not possess the
right to thwart the legal directives of their boss.
The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller.
A fine line exists between anonymous, unelected, unaccountable government officials
undermining the president's legal directives and such people working to overturn the results of
last year's election. One might argue the two as one in the same differing only in degree.
Did the Russians meddle in our electoral process in 2016 or do entrenched bureaucrats do so
on a constant basis? How one answers that question dictates one's response to this current
controversy.
November's results, one might think, would have sparked epiphanies. Americans voted for a
populist outsider to, in his words, "drain the swamp." Brennan's words indicate that the swamp
thrives six months after inauguration. The election neither hastened the drain nor chastened
the creatures from the swamp. As the late, great Stan Evans oft reflected, people go to
Washington imagining it a swamp only to soon regard it as a hot tub. Who wants to vacate a hot
tub?
A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns
resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of
this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted
by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes
off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that
directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is
an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election.
Consider any massive change in America over the last half century or so. The demographic sea
change in the United States occurred in large part in spite, not because, of U.S. immigration
laws. Courts, not the people, determined the legal status of abortion, gay marriage, school
prayer, and much else. On important questions regarding the environment, the internet, and
health care unelected bureaucrats make the rules under which we live. Such policy
change exposes the metachange of process change that allows unelected people to
impose their will on massive numbers of people. Tolerating the hijacking of policy soon leads
to empowered hijackers thinking they can hijack the presidency.
The Constitution decrees, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government." Do the deep-state puppeteers imagine that this principle does
not apply to Washington?
Donald Trump attempts to bring down the curtain on the long-running Puppet Show on the
Potomac. Naturally, Charlie McCarthy finds this more liberating than Edgar Bergen
The House Intelligence Committee has asked the former CEO of President Donald Trump's 2016
presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before them for an interview as part of
their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bannon received a letter this week from the committee. In the letter, the committee requests
that he appear in early January, according to Bloomberg:
"The invitation, which didn't come in the form of a subpoena compelling them to testify,
was for a "voluntary interview" in the committee's offices, which means it would be held
behind closed doors, the official said."
Former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski also received a letter
requesting he speak with the committee in January.
The report further reveals that the letters to Bannon and Lewandowski don't specify reasons
for the interview beyond relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into any Russian
meddling in the 2016 election. At the time of the report, the committee had not received
responses from either Bannon or Lewandowski.
After opposing escalation with Russia over Ukraine as a candidate, President Trump
made the surprising decision to begin supplying Ukraine with lethal arms this week. The neocons
are pleased but urge him to allow even more weapons. What's the reason for the flip-flop? Join
today's Liberty Report for our take...
Other changes are already in the works. On a conference call on Wednesday, it was announced
that James A. Baker, the F.B.I. general counsel who was seen as an ally of Mr. Comey's, would
step down from that post, although he will remain at the bureau. Mr. Baker provided counsel to
Mr. Comey during the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"... Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. ..."
"... "It's hard to know who's telling us the truth," said one House investigator after McCabe's questioning. ..."
"... Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump "dossier" and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow. ..."
"... The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe's own signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier's financing and provenance. ..."
"... Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but was stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of "Main Justice." Department officials confirmed that Ohr had withheld from superiors his secret meetings in 2016 with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the dossier with input from Russian sources; and with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... Subsequently, Fox News disclosed that Ohr's wife Nellie, an academic expert on Russia, had worked for Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ..."
"... The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Lets face it, the FBI officials and the DOJ jumped at the chance to investigate the Trump campaign and it was a combined effort between, McCabe, Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr, Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page and the Lord only knows how many more and they used a dosser which they hardly verified and they used a dossier that come through the DNC to obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and at the end they come up empty and they are still coming up empty. ..."
"... The truth has already been found. All you need is the email between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In that email it say's "we need an insurance policy". Look at the word "we". Now we know they Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page where in McCabe's office discussing the Trump campaign and the email between Lisa and Peter developed from that meeting ..."
Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Tuesday's seven-hour interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe contained
numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting the Republican majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee
to decide to issue fresh subpoenas next week on Justice Department and FBI personnel.
While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G.
Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday's HPSCI session.
The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department's top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two
branches, even worse than the months-long tug of war over documents and witnesses that has already led House Speaker Paul Ryan to
accuse DOJ and FBI of "stonewalling" and HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
"It's hard to know who's telling us the truth," said one House investigator after McCabe's questioning.
Fox News is told that several lawmakers participated in the questioning of McCabe, led chiefly by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Sources close to the investigation say that McCabe was a "friendly witness" to the Democrats in the room, who are said to have
pressed the deputy director, without success, to help them build a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice in the
Russia-collusion probe. "If he could have, he would have," said one participant in the questioning.
Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump "dossier"
and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the
sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators
said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly
held in Moscow.
The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe's own
signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier's financing and provenance.
The decision by HPSCI staff to subpoena Ohr comes as he is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting
its own probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Until earlier this month, when Fox News began investigating him, Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general,
a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
(OCDETF), a program described by the department as "the centerpiece of the attorney general's drug strategy."
Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but was stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of "Main
Justice." Department officials confirmed that Ohr had withheld from superiors his secret meetings in 2016 with Christopher Steele,
the former British spy who authored the dossier with input from Russian sources; and with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS,
the opposition research firm that hired Steele with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Subsequently, Fox News disclosed that Ohr's wife Nellie, an academic expert on Russia, had worked for Fusion GPS through the
summer and fall of 2016.
Former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before the House in March, described the dossier as a compendium of "salacious and
unverified" allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating
whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Page,
a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.
DOJ and FBI say they have cooperated extensively with Nunes and his team, including the provision of several hundred pages of
classified documents relating to the dossier. The DOJ has also made McCabe available to the House Judiciary Committee for a closed-door
interview on Thursday.
The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment for this report.
James Rosen joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 1999 and is the network's chief Washington correspondent. Jake Gibson is a
producer working at the Fox News Washington bureau who covers politics, law enforcement and intelligence issues.
Nam
I cannot find out much about the hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee
had with Andrew McCabe but I have managed to find this. One, McCabe's testimony is not matching up with testimony from others
who have been questioned so now the Judiciary Committee has issued a new set of subpoenas . The second thing I found out is when
McCabe was asked when was it that he discovered that the dosser had come from the DNC, he said he could not recall, even though
the committee has documents with McCabe's signature on them that shows that he McCabe did know it come from the DNC and was paid
for by the Clinton campaign.
Also they found out that the FBI only verified one thing in the dosser before they jumped on it and
used it. I also found out during the questioning of McCabe by the Democrats on the committee that they the Democrats busted their
chops trying to tie Trump to the Russians but they come up empty. I also know that Bruce Ohr is going to get a new round of questioning
by the Judiciary Committee.
Lets face it, the FBI officials and the DOJ jumped at the chance to investigate the Trump campaign
and it was a combined effort between, McCabe, Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr, Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page and the Lord
only knows how many more and they used a dosser which they hardly verified and they used a dossier that come through the DNC to
obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and at the end they come up empty and they are still coming up
empty.
ytubepuppy
I heard a rumor that McCabe was grilled for 7˝ hours.
BrianrrInfluencer
Congress will NEVER get the truth from these professional crooks and liars. if there is evidence just charge them.
NowelhillLeader1d
Democrats can't seem to ever remember anything, yet they keep begging to be in power. I don't remember what for.
freedomtomarryLeaderNowelhill
Democrats are the majority and we have won six of the last seven elections popular vote. Without your electoral college handicap,
the GOP doesn't stand a chance of winning the White House. Never forget that Trump got second place, and that was only after he paid
Russians to hack voting systems in 21 states.
Nam -> MelGlass
The truth has already been found. All you need is the email between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In that email it say's "we
need an insurance policy". Look at the word "we". Now we know they Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page where in McCabe's
office discussing the Trump campaign and the email between Lisa and Peter developed from that meeting.
The word "we" says it is
organized and we know they were plotting. They needed an insurance police just in case. That is criminal. So we have "we" which
constitutes organized and we have criminal. That has RICO written all over it. Off to the dungeons with them.
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
This is American Maydan -- a plot to depose legitimate (albeit widely hated) government. History repeats. And Mueller is a part
of the game to depose Trump for sure. As he is is supported by by powerful anti-Trump forces Trump can't simply fire him without risk
of provoking political crisis. He is in Yanukovich position now and need to negotiate from the position of weakness, not strength.
Now it looks more and more plausible that Steele dossier was a joint operation of CIA and MI6 to discredit Trump: an insurance as
Peter Strzok told his paramour.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's campaign staff colluded with Russian state
actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI
and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe
stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known
knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe has to stonewall on this issue
otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.
Because that's where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually
know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to
'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
This is the session that happened just before appointment of the Special prosecutor. So it was a interesting moment which relael
the growd work for the appointment of the Special prosecutor and the extent US Congress was involved in this activity. So a part
of Congress was also active in the plot to depose Trump.
It is also interesting due to the fact that McCabe, the person at the center of Steele dossier controversy at FBI
was present. As you can see everybody try to hype Russian threat for their own political gain. And McCabe clearly played into
inflaming this paranoia further with his answers.
Also interesting is that while answering "yes" about Russian interference in election was the most safe answer to give, but the
real question is not about Russian interference per se, but whether the level of Russian interference exceeded in scope British interference
(criminal story with Stele dossier and wiretapping of Trump tower), Israel (via Israel lobbyists, NGOs, Kushner and Trump donors)
and Saudi interference (donations to Clinton campaign) to name a few. If the answer is "no", then this is clearly a witch hunt.
Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalism unclear. It does resist enlargement of
the US neoliberal empire as it has its own geopolitical interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia helped
to depose legitimate government in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government
would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And
there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016
election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee
assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting
FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we
have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee
supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release
of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the
type of tactics that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved
in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform
-- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats
I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it
was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what
the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met
with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though,
the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So
it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers
to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into
any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the
Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How
are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for
Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across
the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us --
each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human
or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand
strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back
at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind
the intervention in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed
against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make
a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think
the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted
any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any
decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women
of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software
is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable
with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right,
this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their
deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you
-- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election,
efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue
to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics;
particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not
simply something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's
-- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities
that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness
and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where
it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't
quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly
think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits
a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive
-- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of
the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also
adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily
expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in --
and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought
to take a look at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is
wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people
about where the investigation he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates
I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk
in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians
to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that
is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him
that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes
or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about
conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and
the president of the United States had that conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of
the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney
General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting
attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question,
this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for
the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail
by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations.
I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant
percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence
on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press
stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant
to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way
to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get
your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian
money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly
not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and
the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more
obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people
some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an
observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats,
to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration.
And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far
as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic
issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the
intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And
I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration
and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of
what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and
a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need
to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that
we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking
questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General
McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats,
how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put
a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes
exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors
to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that
-- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in
through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most
urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're
doing our work in the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration
-- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're
not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership
around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in
a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge
difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience
that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from
the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more
direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details
of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of
rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported
Director Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the
moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running
the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable
abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell
you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about
many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection
to Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the
-- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and
I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence
threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual
who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would
you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed.
I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector
general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election
last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday
indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I --
I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is
a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative
practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the
verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard
practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI
director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target,
is that correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and
what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was
behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly
tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data
that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result
of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have
said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in
the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make
sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the
Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian
efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is
that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that
an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One
of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation
of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that
being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state
level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference
in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working
on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled,
I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with
-- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed,
was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications
in that incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to
the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need
for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his
release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious
way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being
here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think
that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back
from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election
such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier
Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are
also a fiercely independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved
in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the
outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about
Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and
people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with
KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line
but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph)
their involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky
software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no
connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that
continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure
they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're
not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk
about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is
-- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within
our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat.
It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the
country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia
uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016
and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's
one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates,
in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed
at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January
18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified
version of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy
to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that
it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in
the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert
influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping
with these past practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures
to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One
would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials
who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United
States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials
asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential
election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I
don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate
of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate
the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that
estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information,
or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy
rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel.
I assume you have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702
(inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly,
and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with
this committee during the course of this open hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity,
including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they
need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation,
in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California.
So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been
fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information
or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources.
And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would
make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia
investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will
not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are
-- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they
understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals
staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission.
But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with
those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI,
given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I
apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect
that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting
whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what
they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number
of people who are in acting positions of authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats;
stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me.
And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by
the Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that
the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You
have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're
a foreign intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge
of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very
hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on
many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall
every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical
question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department
of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report
confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated
with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits,
resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions.
These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities
and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent
plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I
think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take
charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department
of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government
to the private sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability,
the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director,
glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how
many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in
itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have
security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading
peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have
a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed
and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to
a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I
learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant
statements as to that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine
whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address
-- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe --
we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why
it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the
number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security
and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's
campaign staff colluded with Russian state actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but
confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is
the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as
opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point
to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known knowledge
of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the
hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe
has to stonewall on this issue otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on
behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent. Because that's where
all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look
at what we actually know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting
down the Mueller investigation to 'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of
simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in
this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
The Stupid
Show
Look, anyone taking the rumor seriously that Donald Trump was close to shutting Mueller's
investigation down should have their head examined. This was a blatant plant by the Washington
Post (and the CIA, let's get real) to create exactly the kind of response from the Wil Wheatons of our world .
These people are simply ab-reacting noradrenaline junkies living in their amygdalas 24/7
while the world moves on without them.
Oh, important thing that I forgot: There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans
who are prepared to take to the streets when Trump tries to fire Mueller, DAG Rosenstein, or
otherwise shut down the investigation. We're organizing here: https://t.co/0NjevMQ4oN (13/12)
-- Wil 'Kick the Nazis off the tweeters' Wheaton (@wilw) December 19,
2017
I don't know if we can stop it from happening, or if there are even enough Republicans in
government who are capable of putting our country ahead of their party. But read up and know
your history, just in case: https://t.co/79YhjPcKq9 (12/12)
-- Wil 'Kick the Nazis off the tweeters' Wheaton (@wilw) December 19,
2017
If this isn't the picture of someone in serious need of psychotherapy then
In the same week we also get this
little ditty by Newsweek . You don't think these things aren't coordinated to evoke this
kind of response in ' soy-boy '
Wheaton?
Painter, who worked under former president George W. Bush, appeared on MSNBC to discuss
the widely criticized Fox News segment that suggested the FBI's investigation into the Trump
campaign could be considered a coup.
"The commander in chief is Donald Trump," Painter said. "There is a risk of him using that
power to destroy our democracy, whether you call it a coup or anything else. It's not from
the critics of Donald Trump that the danger is posed, it's the fact that the man who is
commander in chief of our military is engaged in obstruction of justice."
The salient point here is why would Trump shut down Mueller?
Mueller has nothing on him. The longer this goes on the worse it looks for everyone involved
and Trump comes out looking like the victim of a political witch-hunt.
Trump knows and has known from the beginning that there was nothing to investigate.
The only question has been whether Mueller could invent something through nigh-onto-illegal
pressuring of people like Flynn, caught in the usual FBI web of procedural dishonesty, to turn
on Trump and perjure themselves to avoid a prison sentence.
Trump v. Mueller
In fact, the more I think about the sequence of events, the more I think the meeting between
Trump and Mueller the evening before Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel involved Trump
telling Mueller, "Good luck finding anything, Bob, I'll hang you by your own rope when this is
all over."
If I were in Trump's position I would have done exactly that. I would have goaded Mueller
into this, knowing full well that Uranium One was out there. This would have lit a fire under
Mueller to cast a wide net, turn over every rock looking for any kind of dirt. Doing so would
expose the whole rotten mess and Mueller looks like a guy running around investigating himself
in the end.
Remember, Trump is the one that brought up Uranium One in the first place on the campaign
trail. In response, Hillary, as she always does, then accused Trump of that which she was
actually guilty of – colluding with the Russians and using her position for personal
gain.
The people who want to believe in Russia-Gate are missing this in their zeal to rid the
world of Trump to validate their own failing world-view.
The longer this investigation goes on the more it will uncover the truth about what
happened. In my mind, all the Mueller is doing now is compiling the actual case to exonerate
himself over Uranium One and throw the rest of the FBI under the bus.
Given what we already know, I'd say Bob's done a good job of this and it's time for him to
step aside and let this play out.
Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate
(with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and
neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia
"brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off.
Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional
committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if
Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for
improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to
interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in
August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016
election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in
the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the
cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between
the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump
campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was
any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts
occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan
said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence
services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a
treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he
said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because
of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin
and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside
Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human
rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the
likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before
Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate
her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton
that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely
"husbanding it for another day."
On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified
intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated
"protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the
U.S.
Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be
classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very
damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."
Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back
up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no
evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized
intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of
classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"
Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been
trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the
times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives'
emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.
"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and
the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and
"whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems
networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.
He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks
that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are
"disingenuous."
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
what is interesting is that whuile answering "yes" about Russian interference in election is
safe answer, the real quesion is whehther Russian intergfernce exceed in scope British (Stele
dossier), Israel (via Kushner) and Saudi interference to name a few. If no this is a witch
hunt. Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalm
and empire is unlear. It does has its own interests in former USSR space. How would the US
react if Russia halped to depose legitimate goverment in Mexico and started to supply arms in
order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government would consider were
occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal
is not illegal. And there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US
neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the
extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian
intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask
this question is consequently that committee assess -- or that community assessment was
unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr.
McCabe for as long as you are Acting FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee
of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between Russia and
the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48
hours it's critically important that we have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least
from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee supports them,
supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu
all over again in terms of the release of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before
the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the type of tactics
that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in
2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter
files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform --
platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there
some general sense -- Director Coats I know you've only been in the job for a short period of
time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it was Russia in 2016
other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of
collection and analysis relative to what the influence has been and potentially could be in
future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met with the
Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was
the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe
and other places. It's clear though, the Russians have upped their game using social media
and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So it's a great
threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence
we can to the policy makers to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect
a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern
but since this doesn't fall neatly into any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's
-- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the Google,
Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of
state boards of election? How are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we
can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but
there's contribution from agencies across the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to
address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us -- each of the
agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT,
whether it's NSA through human or other sources will provide information to us that we want
to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still
assessing the impact. We have not put a grand strategy together, which would not be our
purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to
be sitting here kind of looking back at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very
briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind the intervention
in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed
against the Russian -- excuse me, directed against the French election process. As I
previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what
are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm
-- I'm not really in a position to make a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any
individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr.
Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any
investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite
any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our
investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from
doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and
people know this, Kaspersky Lab software is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of
Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable with
the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly,
this is consistent with what -- right, this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in
United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their deepest
tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse
to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the
past is that the opinion of all of you -- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on
this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election, efforts to
influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing
that the Russians continue to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and
the decisions made in American politics; particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests
around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not simply
something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this
has been going on for a long time. There's -- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been
lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly
increased the impact and the capabilities that -- obviously this has been done for years and
years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness and -- and
all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their
game to the point where it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access
information in massive quantities that weren't quite obtainable to the same level previously
and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last
presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as
perhaps we should be but I certainly think that, given China's aggressive approach relative
to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits a -- a review of
CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to
address the aggressive -- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but
across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major
investment bank -- you name a park of the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to
put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also adding military
capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that --
that you wouldn't necessarily expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're
active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest
they have to the Indian Ocean in -- and a different way to address nations that they've had
difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought to take a look
at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room
but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey
should be here this morning testifying to the American people about where the investigation
he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into
connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information
didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in
recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have
forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly
that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks
to attack our democracy, he did; that is an established fact. The only question is whether he
or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate
occasions the director informed him that he was not under investigations. Would it have been
wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had
with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was
not under investigation? That's not about conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment
on whether or not the director and the president of the United States had that
conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone
else in the White House on the status of the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire
Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney General Yates warned the White House that he could be
blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting attorney
general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the
warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global
threat. This is a global threat question, this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not
sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military
official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. So this is not about a policy
implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail by the
Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary
circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will
remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction,
Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the
concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I
-- I wasn't part of any of those conversations. I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was
given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question,
Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a
Putin crony could end up owning a significant percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and
what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that
potentially, we could provide intelligence on in terms of what this -- what situation might
be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question
in, there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections
between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant to the FBI and
my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to
be laundered on its way to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned
about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the
British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe,
what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian money and its
potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about
specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you
that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal
the origin and the -- and the track and the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as
the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more obtuse, it
becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light
on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman
expressed is to give the American people some insight into what we all do, which they don't
see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an observation and
then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start
with you Director Coats, to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate
and all through the last administration. And I have been greatly impressed by the current
administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far as their
engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national
media here is focused on domestic issues which is of great interest to the American people be
it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in
my judgment, robust engagement with the intelligence communities around the world and with
other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And I want --
I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real
engagement in the last administration and all the administrations are different. So Director
Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come
with an agenda in mind in terms of what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues
that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and a number of
things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats
that exist out there need to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director
Pompeo and I can certify the fact that we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than
we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking questions and
asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the
national security council, General McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the
principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats, how do we
address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy
makers in terms of how they put a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick
brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in
briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors to come and
show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the
information they provide how that -- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you
their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind
of sit in the same spot we all sit in through the last several years and I kind of like your
observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president
everyday, briefing him with the most urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as
-- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're doing our work in
the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the
battle space in places the administration -- the previous administration was completely
absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and
they welcome American leadership. They're not looking for American soldiers, they're not
looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership around the
globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's
interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but
they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the
first 100 days and -- and done it in a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was
watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge difference as
far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement
experience, is it -- is it your experience that people who are innocent of wrong doing
typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal
letter from -- earlier this week from the president where he writes, "While I greatly
appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But
let me go to something a little more direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director
McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but
I really don't want to go into the details of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director
Comey had -- had lost the confidence of rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21
years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported Director
Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very
closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive
assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the
Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have
the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the
greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also
that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe.
We have a diversity of opinions about many things, but I can confidently tell you that the
majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to
Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for
the existing investigations that the -- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to
follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the
adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately.
If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we
face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become
an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are
covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to
provide classified information to an individual who has been compromised by a foreign
government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was
compromised what -- what sort of action would you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report
this ad how it's -- how it is processed. I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our
-- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector general and
others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into
Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not
who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in
their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important
investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people
experiencing questions and are reacting to the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other
investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your
opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional
resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian
active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact
made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources,
we make those requests here. So I -- I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not
consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I
mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced.
COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent
out notifying a individual that he is a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter
sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not
part of our normal case investigative practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of
an investigation and is perhaps on the verge of being indicted that the Justice Department
sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the
answer to this question but is it standard practice for the FBI to inform someone that they
are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to
have been a notification from the FBI director to President Trump or anyone else involved in
this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target, is that
correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have
done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to
figure out what's standard practice and what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the
attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint
claim that APT28 is the group that was behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the
information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly tied APT28 to
Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's
involvement in stealing data that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in
November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior
to the French election to be the result of activities by this group, which is linked to
Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity
associated with France but as I have said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware
of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in the course --
particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French
counterparts to inform them and make sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to
ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances,
we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of
Representative, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI,
as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of
any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government
and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of
whether any crimes were committed." Is that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally
with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest
things on the plate of the FBI, is that an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that
you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged
in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and
their involvement in this election. One of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can
direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation of Russian
involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know
about that? And is that being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the
presidential election, I'm talking about state level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The --
the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great
concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past
several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question
that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations
of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to
improve not only our coordination with -- primarily through the Department of Homeland --
through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber
attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office.
There was not any American press allowed, was there any consultation with you with regard to
that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications in that
incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but
no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew
were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were
you consulted at all with regard to the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an
important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director
McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to
confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the
actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI,
it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the
investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this
investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you
seem to be of great interest of being here. And we're going to look forward to really from
hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think that we'll able
to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency
and the morale basically starting back from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th
and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election such as this and
did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would
develop. You know, as I said earlier Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we
have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are also a fiercely
independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that
basically Director Comey got involved in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale?
Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our
agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those
folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to
the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it
risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly
concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far
outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making
sure that you have no interaction with KL or any of the contractors you do business with?
Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our
systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be
a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I
would hope that -- I'll go down the line but I hope that all of you -- we are very much
concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph) their
involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and
I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder
to define but at this point we see no connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting
(ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security
issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about
Kaspersky and its position here. And that continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've
swept all of your contractors to make sure they understand the certainty you have, concern
that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're not
involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different
things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't
talk about them much. And when you talk about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells
Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is -- what are we
doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have
with these gangs within our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our
highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over
the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like --
much like the online pharmacy threat. It continues to change and develop harried we think
it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the country, so
we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the
aggressiveness with which would Russia uses active measures or covert influence operations,
propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016 and in hacking
into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French
election last week -- that's one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures
working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses
know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates, in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed
soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear
range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted
a massive covert action operation, aimed at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA
devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush,
Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January 18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it
widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified version
of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and
providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically,
undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that it be
included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no
objection, we'll include it in the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia
was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization
efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping with these past
practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that
Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts
and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two
unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be re-starting that old (inaudible)
Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy
officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's
their embassy or a consulate around the United States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from
high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I
declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our
intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two
provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late
2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to
read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've
discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to
release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been
incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people
outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental
collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the
process of generating the insight violate the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect
privacy rights, but to produce that estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy
rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the
midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of
inaccuracy or misleading information, or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes
that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe
under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel. I assume you
have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe
there are any abuses in the section 702 (inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might
infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly, and that might make it even that much
harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have
program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48
hours, and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open
hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian
hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight
role over all of our FBI operational activity, including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the
investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to
make sure they have the resources they need and are getting the direction and the guidance
they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in
terms of oversight of the investigation, in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper
for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the
investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that
investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been
in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his
office. He was actually in California. So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his
files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way
that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked
Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't
believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will
come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not
talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice
about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in
this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women
of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's --
that's working on this issue. They are -- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective
leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they understand
and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my
investigators, analysts and professionals staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and
women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will
directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will
find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not
be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of
confidence in the leadership of the FBI, given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI.
That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he
did. We all understand that. We expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a
suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting whoever that
person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person
get off to a great start and do what they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this
interim period, where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of
authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for
the FBI stay focused on the threats; stay focused on the issues that are of so much
importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and
reviewed the response that you gave to me. And of course, what I'm concerned about is the
Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the
Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication
-- second-hand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to
blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I
regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence
investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign
intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I
had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at
all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security
advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American
people. I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with
the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor.
He was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we
spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the
United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall every conversation with General Flynn during that
time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral
Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling and
that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland
Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone
security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time,
which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with a signaling
system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are
vulnerable to these exploits, resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the
federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions. These
vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign
intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security
Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to
get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a
coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face
with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I think the federal communications commission
has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge
of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment.
I share the concern the Department of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead
federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private
sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate
insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem. Partnering with
DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created
partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that
for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with
respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role.
You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how many innocent
law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an
estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue
has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that
they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to
be invading peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get
it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who
understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights
indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I
promised to you that I would -- if confirmed and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral
Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific
number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time
talking about that. And I learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the --
the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to
that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American
people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they breached privacy. So, it --
it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I
believe in June -- as early as June to address -- get into that issue and to address that,
and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number
is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe -- we are committed -- we are committed to a special
meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I
understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this
specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and
technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it, and the government is
not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real
debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have
to have that number.
"Neither Robert Mueller's team nor the US Senate Intelligence Committee has bothered to
contact WikiLeaks or me, in any manner, ever." -- @Julian Assange, Twitter, September 20,
2017
This one tweet completely invalidates the notion that Robert Mueller has been conducting a
legitimate investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
elections. Regardless of the degree of suspicion in which Assange is held, there is
absolutely no excuse for the people responsible for investigating Russia not to have had any
interaction of any kind whatsoever with one of the central characters in the official
narrative about what Russia is supposed to have done.
"Prosecutors have been avoiding Assange because he has said multiple times that the
Russian government is not the source of the DNC leaks."
If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally, and he would have done so long ago. But finding out what happened
last year is not Mueller's job. Mueller's job is to enforce a pre-existing narrative. It is
painfully obvious at this point that the Senate Intelligence Committee and Mueller's team
have been avoiding Assange the way Hillary Clinton avoids personal responsibility because
Assange has said multiple times that the Russian government is not the source of the DNC
leaks or the Podesta emails released last year.
If this is an actual investigation into an actual alleged crime, then Assange is
necessarily either (A) a source of useful information, (B) a person of interest, or (C) a
suspect in the crime itself. None of those allows for any excuse for not speaking to him. If
it's either (A) or (B), he's a potential goldmine of information for their investigation to
make use of. If it's (C), they can grill him and try to get him to give something up. Even
someone caught on video committing a murder eventually gets interviewed by the law
enforcement officials responsible for investigating their case to establish the accused's
side of the story; if they didn't, they'd be committing malpractice. Since they did not seek
to question Assange early and extensively, this cannot possibly be an actual investigation
into an actual allegation.
"If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally long ago."
The fact of the matter is that Russia has been America's Public Enemy Number One since the
end of World War Two, and for that reason there is a longstanding tradition in the United
States of tarring political enemies with baseless accusations of Kremlin ties. Establishment
loyalists have been accusing WikiLeaks of being in bed with Russia since long before any
election meddling accusations surfaced, despite the organization's long and continued record
of publishing critical documents related to the Russian Federation. They have been doing so
not because there is any basis for such accusations, but because WikiLeaks is their political
enemy. There is nothing more hostile to America's pernicious unelected power establishment
than unauthorized truth-telling, and WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in
unauthorized truth-telling. It is that simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth. Mueller's investigation is
actively avoiding all potential sources of truth. The US intelligence community to which
Mueller is loyal is the right arm of America's unelected power establishment, and due to
conflicting economic and geopolitical interests things have been coming to a head with Russia
for a long time. The neoconservative ideology which governs America's foreign policy is
geared first and foremost toward preventing the rise of another rival superpower, and the
former seat of the Soviet Union will always be first on the list of suspects.
"WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in unauthorized truth-telling. It is that
simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth."
Things are not going as planned for America's true rulers. Not in Syria, not in North
Korea, and certainly not in Russia.
***People's unprecedented ability to network and share information due to rising internet
literacy and access has caused a severe breakdown in the propaganda machine which holds their
entire prison together, and people are waking up to their manipulations***
.
(Hence the move to eliminate net neurtrality as I posted supra)
These creeps are on the back foot now. Keep fighting and wrest control of the world away
from the plutocratic sociopaths who are trying to deceive and enslave us"
"... The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them questions to which the FBI already had the answers. ..."
"... Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon. ..."
Within hours of his victory in last year's presidential election, Donald Trump dispatched
his lawyers to establish a nonprofit corporation to manage his transition from private life to
the presidency. This was done pursuant to a federal statute that provides for taxpayer-funded
assistance to the newly elected -- but not yet inaugurated -- president. The statutory term for
the corporation is the presidential transition team, or PTT.
In addition to paying the PTT's bills, the General Services Administration, which manages
all nonmilitary federal property, provided the PTT with government computers, software and a
computer service provider. During the course of the PTT's existence, the folks who worked for
it sent or received tens of thousands of emails. The PTT ceased to exist upon Trump's
inauguration, and a receiver was hired to wind it down.
Last weekend, a lawyer for the receiver revealed a letter he sent to Congress complaining
that special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any agreement
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by
Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election -- dispatched FBI
agents to the GSA looking for copies of all the PTT's emails and that the GSA surrendered
them.
How did this happen?
When the FBI is looking for documents or tangible things, it has several legal tools
available. They range in their disruptive nature from a simple request to a grand jury subpoena
to a judicially authorized search warrant.
The FBI request is the easiest for the government, and if FBI agents ask you for something and
you give it to them, you cannot later be heard to complain that your privacy rights regarding
the things you surrendered were violated. If they seize your documents pursuant to a subpoena
or a warrant, they normally get to use what they have seized.
The issue becomes more complex when the FBI comes calling for documents of yours that are
legally in the hands of a custodian -- such as your physician, lawyer, banker or accountant. In
the case of Trump's PTT and Mueller's wish for all PTT emails, the sought-after data -- the
electronic copies of all the PTT's emails -- were in custody of the GSA.
Anyone who has ever used a GSA computer is familiar with the warning that appears on the
screen at the time of each use. It says that there is no right to privacy in the communications
sent or received, as the electronic versions of those communications are the property of the
federal government. This, no doubt, is the reason Hillary Clinton infamously used her husband's
computer servers during her four years at the State Department rather than the
government's.
We do not know whether Mueller's FBI agents merely requested the electronic data from the GSA
or his prosecutors obtained a grand jury subpoena. If it was a simple FBI request and if the
GSA simply complied, that was a lawful acquisition by the FBI of the PTT emails, yet in that
case, the GSA violated its fiduciary duty to inform the PTT of the request before it complied
with it.
If the FBI came calling on the GSA with a grand jury subpoena, that means Mueller's team
must have presented evidence under oath to a grand jury and demonstrated that the sought-after
items would more likely than not be helpful to the investigation. When a grand jury issues a
subpoena to a custodian of records -- no matter who the custodian is -- it is the moral and
fiduciary duty of the custodian, not the government, to inform the owner of the subpoenaed
items that a subpoena has been received.
In some cases, it is also the legal duty of the custodian to inform the owner, but it
apparently was not in this case. As far as we can tell, there was no written agreement between
the GSA and the PTT requiring the GSA to inform the PTT of any document requests or subpoenas.
Had such a request been revealed, the lawyer for the receiver of the PTT would have had an
opportunity to challenge the government before a judge. Without that notice, there is no time
for the challenge.
Until 1986, it was the duty of the government when seeking documents or tangible things from
a custodian to inform the owner, as well as the custodian, of its intent. That fair procedure
gave the owner of the records time to challenge the government before a judge. But the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (which has nothing whatsoever to do with
protecting privacy), enacted at the dawn of the digital age, did away with that
requirement.
Now if the custodian remains silent in the face of an FBI request or a grand jury subpoena,
the owner of the documents loses his opportunity to keep them from the government. That is what
happened here.
But there is more.
The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be
devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been
interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their
emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members
into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them
questions to which the FBI already had the answers.
Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's
practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump
team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against
Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal
processes.
" .. special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any
agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known
efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election --
"
Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these
"now-well-known efforts"? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr.
Napolitano?
Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano's column published
here on December 7:
" .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian
government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election ..
"
Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:
any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
interference >>> affect the outcome
Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington,
where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue
or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that
all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and
state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.
"Can the FBI Get Away with Getting Trump Team Emails?"
They already have. We will hear more bluster from Representatives Gowdy and Jordan but as
always in the past nothing will happen. I have lost count, but these two have been
grandstanding for years on all manner of injustice .without one victory.
Again with "now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the
2016 presidential election"?
The meme is well known. But approximately half of us know it is a lie. Judge Swamp
Creature knows it's a lie but (repeatedly) repeats it anyway. What's in it for you Judge?
What is now well known is that Mueller is a political assassin, hired to lead a soft coup
against an elected president.
Why bother to ask these silly questions? FBI gets away with anything and everything it wants
to do. When a mob owns ALL the blackmail files, nobody can stop it. There is no such thing as
"law". There is only bullets, bombs and blackmail.
Mr. Napolitano is taking a radical position when he confidently claims that it is legal for
the FBI to secretly read transition emails without a warrant or subpoena, or, indeed, any
official authority whatsover. It seems the FBI simply asked GSA for the emails, rather than
getting a subpoena -- that's the big point here, since of course GSA has to hand them over if
there is a subpoena, but a court has to authorize it then. So here, the FBI had no more
authority than any other agency in the executive branch. Mr. Napolitano's position is that
that's fine. If so, it would equally have been okay for the GSA to give the Secretary of
Agriculture, the IRS Commissioner, or President Obama permission to secretly view the Trump
transition team's emails during the transition. Indeed, the FBI was not acting with any
authority in this case, just a request, so Napolitano's claim is that the GSA could have
given the emails to Nancy Pelosi if she'd asked. Is that really the position you want to
take? It's absurd. If that were the law, then no winning presidential candidate would ever
want to make use of transition facilities and computer systems, since it would be to allow
the opposition party open access to all of his plans.
who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the
outcome of the 2016 presidential election
For true? Great. Since they're so well-known, please describe them in detail.Oh, you mean
nobody's got any idea WTF those efforts were? Yeah, thought so.
Even assuming a GSA computer warns its user ( everytime?) that data stored on it is
government property how does that allow Mueller or anyone else to seize the emails of the
party not using a GSA computer? No warning was given to the party receiving an e-mail or
replying to an email sent from a government computer.
I recognize a wiretap records both ends of a telephone call or email but that requires a
judge to issue the warrant ( and we can hope the judge has more respect for the Constitution
than the creep writing this does).
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient ..."
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments ..."
"... the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct, or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently. ..."
"... Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids. ..."
"... The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid evidence of anything. ..."
"... Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents ..."
"... The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel ..."
"... The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general ..."
"... That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller. Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because he's so obviously a criminal himself ..."
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe
that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been
met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None. And that's been the main criticism of the investigation from
the get go. It's fine for the New York Times and the Washington Post to reiterate the same tedious, unsubstantiated claims over and
over again ad nauseam. Their right to fabricate news is guaranteed under the First Amendment and they take full advantage of that
privilege. But it's different for professional attorney operating at the highest level of the Justice Department to appoint a Special
Counsel to rummage through all manner of private or privileged documents, transcripts, tax returns, private conversations, intercepted
phone calls and emails -- of the democratically-elected president -- based on nothing more than the spurious and politically-motivated
allegations made in the nation's elite media or by flagrantly-partisan actors operating in the Intelligence Community or law enforcement.
Can you see the problem here? This is not just an attack on Trump (whose immigration, environmental, health care, tax and foreign
policies I personally despise.) It is an attempt to roll back the results of the election by bogging him down in legal proceedings
making it impossible for him to govern. These attacks are not just on Trump, they're on the legitimate authority of the people to
choose their own leaders in democratic elections. That's what's at stake. And that's why there must be a high threshold for launching
an investigation like this.
Consider this: On May 17, 2017, when Rosenstein announced his decision to appoint a Special Counsel he said the following:
"In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and
appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed
or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree
of independence from the normal chain of command." Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a "full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election." As special counsel, Mueller is charged with
investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump."
That's not good enough. There's no evidence that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" were improper, unethical or illegal. Nor do any such presumed "links and/or
coordination" imply a crime was committed. Rather, the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open
ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands
of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct,
or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently.
Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been
caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation
of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated
to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids.
So, how does one establish whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed?
The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that
was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the
beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid
evidence of anything.
Here's the from the report:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
... ... ...
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
"The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general."
That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller.
Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because
he's so obviously a criminal himself.
That segment of the general public, as it were, have been opposed to the establishment of the investigation itself from the
first day it was proposed.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
According to Politico , a group of frustrated Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes (R-CA) have been
gathering in secret for several weeks to build a case against senior leaders of the Justice Department and the FBI for what they
say is "improper" and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page Trump-Russia dossier, according to four
sources familiar with their plans.
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been
quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. [ ]
The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy
in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about
the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. -
Politico
When pressed for details, Reps Mike Conway (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) were mum, with Conway telling POLITICO, "I don't want
talk about what we do behind closed doors."
Nunes' has gone on record several times to discuss his feelings over the government law enforcement, telling Fox News "I hate
to use the word corrupt, but they've become at least so dirty that who's watching the watchmen? Who's investigating these people?"
adding "There is no one."
House and Senate Republicans have joined countless voices, including President Trump's outside counsel,
Jay Sekulow
, to launch a second Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department to find out what role the salacious dossier played
in the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as a trove of anti-Trump text messages sent between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok
to his FBI attorney mistress Lisa Page while the two of them were working together on both the Clinton email investigation and the
Trump-Russia investigation.
Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival
Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president's inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into
whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a "witch hunt," and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr.
told a crowd in
Florida the probes were part of a "rigged system" by "people at the highest levels of government" who were working to hurt
the president.
House Intel Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH) told Fox News yesterday that they are now considering contempt of the FBI and DOJ
leadership and subpoenas over anti-Trump bias:
I think they were putting together a plan to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. I think
it's amazing in spite of the fact that the Democrats were against him, the Republican establishment was against him, the mainstream
press was against him. and now I believe the FBI and the Justice Department were against him , the American people still said
that's the guy we want to be the next president.
" I believe that fake dossier was used as the basis to get Warren to now what we learn about Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr and the
FBI and the Justice Department ," said Jordan, adding, " Everything points to the fact that there was an orchestrated plan to try
to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States ."
Meanwhile, Trey Gowdy - who notably chose not to call on key witness Peter Strzok or demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr for testimony
- is apparently not included in the group seeking to build a case. As POLITICO reports, "A congressional aide with knowledge of the
meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. " While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made
decisions worth looking into, he is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel ," the aide said.
I think he's intimating that she would have been responded to with extreme violence from the 'deplorables'. Gotta admit: had
she gotten in, we may have already had a revolution. Instead, we get this slow death by a thousand cuts. I'm not sure what is
worse.
At this point I would not trust Mr Gowdy, in fact it's my hope his time with the state of SC ends soon. He's simply shown an
extreme level in lacking execution. After what happened this week with McCabe's closed door testimony, it's clear Gowdy isn't
on the side of the American people. It's called being able to close & he doesn't have it or is holding something back.
The corruption in the FBI is too broad and too deep. This organization is a nest of traitorous vipers who actively worked to
overthrow a constitutionally elected president.
The organisation must be gutted and it's mission absorbed by other agencies. The current FBI management should water the tree
of liberty.
And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are
being made that Robert Mueller's sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails
illicitly.
This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller's team, already under a cloud for proven malice
toward the president.
Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked
free when it was learned that the White House "Plumbers" had burgled his psychiatrist's
office.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
Strzok's "insurance" text shows the FBI disregarded warnings that launching Russiagate was
wrong and the reason of launching investigation was purely politcal
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of this discussion Page expressed the view – commonplace in August 2016 – that Donald Trump had no prospect of winning the election. She therefore counselled that the proposed Russiagate investigation was unnecessary. Strzok responded that the FBI had no choice but to proceed with the Russiagate investigation because of the risk of not doing so was too great. ..."
"... The proposal to launch the Russiagate investigation clearly ran into resistance from some members of the FBI. Clearly they were unhappy because they were worried that it would amount to improper interference in the election. Undoubtedly they were also worried that it might violate the Hatch Act, which forbids misuse of public office to engage in partisan political activity especially during an election. ..."
"... The hardliners – and Strzok's text message clearly identifies Strzok as one of the hardliners – however overrode those objections. They insisted the Russiagate investigation had to be launched. They did so because the mere possibility of Trump winning the election, however remote, was too great a risk for them to accept. ..."
"... The key piece in the jigsaw is again the Trump Dossier. It is now known that Christopher Steele – the Trump Dossier's compiler – was in contact with the FBI in early July 2016, before publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks on 22nd July 2016. The very first entry of the Trump Dossier dated 20th June 2016 and almost certainly seen by Strzok before Wikileaks published the DNC emails and therefore before the earliest possible date for the launch of the Russiagate investigation already claimed that the Russians had compromising material on Trump because of Trump's supposed orgy with Russian prostitutes in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Later entries in the Trump Dossier dated 19th July 2016, 30th July 2016, 5th August 2016 and 10th August 2016, and one entry incorrectly dated 26th July 2015 but which can be clearly dated to July 2016, not only claimed that the Russians were meddling in the election on Donald Trump's behalf – purportedly on the direct orders from President Putin himself – but also claimed that Trump's campaign was actively colluding with the Russians in doing this. Some of these entries would almost certainly have been seen by Strzok before the Russiagate investigation was launched, and he had probably seen all of them before he texted Page on 15th August 2016. ..."
"... It is now known that the FBI gave credence to the Trump Dossier in the summer of 2016 to the point where it used information obtained from the Trump Dossier to obtain FISA warrants, notably one authorising surveillance of Carter Page. ..."
"... There is one further possibility which is more speculative. It is now know that sometime in August 2016 the CIA forwarded to President Obama a report alleging that the Russians were meddling in the US election. All the facts show that this report was based on the Trump Dossier. Assuming that the FBI and the CIA were consulting each other and exchanging information about the Trump Dossier – as is highly likely – it is possible that the discussion in McCabe's office was also about the report the CIA was proposing to send to Obama, with some people within the FBI concerned that the Trump Dossier's unverified allegations were being used to compile a report for the President of the United States. Regardless of this second possibility, the Strzok text is key evidence because it shows that the FBI pressed ahead with the Russiagate investigation despite the objections of some of its members. ..."
Strzok's "insurance" text shows the FBI disregarded warnings that launching Russiagate was
wrong
The last few days the media has been buzzing with speculation about the precise meaning of a
text message sent by the sacked FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his lover FBI lawyer Lisa Page
on 15th August 2016. I am puzzled by this speculation. I don't think there is any mystery at
all about this text. There is no doubt it refers to the Russiagate investigation and its
meaning is perfectly clear. Let's look first at the text itself
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's
no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance
policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
"Andy" is FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. "He" is Donald Trump. If that was not so
someone by now would have said so. The text shows Strzok and Page took part in a discussion in
McCabe's office in which Donald Trump and the election were discussed. Over the course of
this discussion Page expressed the view – commonplace in August 2016 – that Donald
Trump had no prospect of winning the election. She therefore counselled that the proposed
Russiagate investigation was unnecessary. Strzok responded that the FBI had no choice but to
proceed with the Russiagate investigation because of the risk of not doing so was too
great.
The Russiagate investigation is obviously the "insurance" Strzok is talking about. Nothing
else makes sense. Does the text message tell us anything else? The short answer is it does, and
it is important. The proposal to launch the Russiagate investigation clearly ran into resistance from some
members of the FBI. Clearly they were unhappy because they were worried that it would amount to
improper interference in the election. Undoubtedly they were also worried that it might violate
the Hatch Act, which forbids misuse of public office to engage in partisan political activity
especially during an election.
That there were discussions within the FBI about the Hatch Act over the course of the summer
of 2016 we know because concern about a possible violation of the Hatch Act was the reason
former FBI Director James Comey gave for his refusal to sign the US intelligence community's
7th October 2016 statement which blamed Russia for meddling in the US election.
It was clearly in response to these concerns about the possible unlawfulness of the
Russiagate investigation and its possible impropriety that Page who is a lawyer suggested that
there was no need to launch the Russiagate investigation because Trump was certain to lose the
election anyway.
The hardliners – and Strzok's text message clearly identifies Strzok as one of the
hardliners – however overrode those objections. They insisted the Russiagate
investigation had to be launched. They did so because the mere possibility of Trump winning the
election, however remote, was too great a risk for them to accept.
As to why this was so, the answer is that Strzok and the other members of the FBI who
supported him had by this point clearly convinced themselves that the claims that Donald Trump
was connected to the Russians were true.
The key piece in the jigsaw is again the Trump Dossier. It is now known that Christopher
Steele – the Trump Dossier's compiler – was in contact with the FBI in early July
2016, before publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks on 22nd July 2016. The very first entry
of the Trump Dossier dated 20th June 2016 and almost certainly seen by Strzok before Wikileaks
published the DNC emails and therefore before the earliest possible date for the launch of the
Russiagate investigation already claimed that the Russians had compromising material on Trump
because of Trump's supposed orgy with Russian prostitutes in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow
in 2013.
Later entries in the Trump Dossier dated 19th July 2016, 30th July 2016, 5th August 2016
and 10th August 2016, and one entry incorrectly dated 26th July 2015 but which can be clearly
dated to July 2016, not only claimed that the Russians were meddling in the election on Donald
Trump's behalf – purportedly on the direct orders from President Putin himself –
but also claimed that Trump's campaign was actively colluding with the Russians in doing this.
Some of these entries would almost certainly have been seen by Strzok before the Russiagate
investigation was launched, and he had probably seen all of them before he texted Page on 15th
August 2016.
It is now known that the FBI gave credence to the Trump Dossier in the summer of 2016 to
the point where it used information obtained from the Trump Dossier to obtain FISA warrants,
notably one authorising surveillance of Carter Page.
That fact alone is sufficient to explain why hardliners within the FBI like Strzok were
insisting in the summer of 2016 that the Russiagate investigation had to be launched despite
the doubts about its lawfulness and propriety expressed by some people within the FBI.
It was in order to arrive at a decision whether or not to launch the Russiagate
investigation despite the doubts some were expressing about it that the meeting in McCabe's
office was called, with the decision being to proceed as Strzok wanted despite the doubts.
All this seems to me obvious from the wording of Strzok's text, from its date, and from the
surrounding circumstances.
There is one further possibility which is more speculative. It is now know that sometime
in August 2016 the CIA forwarded to President Obama a report alleging that the Russians were
meddling in the US election. All the facts show that this report was based on the Trump
Dossier. Assuming that the FBI and the CIA were consulting each other and exchanging
information about the Trump Dossier – as is highly likely – it is possible that the
discussion in McCabe's office was also about the report the CIA was proposing to send to Obama,
with some people within the FBI concerned that the Trump Dossier's unverified allegations were
being used to compile a report for the President of the United States. Regardless of this
second possibility, the Strzok text is key evidence because it shows that the FBI pressed ahead
with the Russiagate investigation despite the objections of some of its members.
Should there ever be an investigation by a second Special Counsel of the FBI's conduct
during the election, and should criminal charges ever be brought against its top officials for
the things they did during the election, this may prove to be important. It would show that
they pressed ahead and did things disregarding warnings that what they were proposing to do was
wrong.
Especially agree with the conclusion- "Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting
more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isn't this what Paul Ryan means by "A Better
Way"?"
He is gloating that we have more "choices" as he takes away any possible means for actually
paying for our health care. This in a nutshell is the entire GOP approach. We are free to die.
In my state, one company (BC/BS) controls 0ver 70% of the health insurance market and there are
only two other even marginally significant players. Market based my ...
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
he Department of Justice is refusing to release details of the process that
led to FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to be able to serve as
special counsel investigating Trump's campaign involvement with Russia during the 2016
election.
On Friday, the agency released a one-sentence memo that confirmed Mueller was granted a
conflict-of-interest waiver to serve in the position.
The waiver is believed to be related to Mueller's previous work as a partner at WilmerHale
law firm, which is also the firm that represented former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
and White House adviser Jared Kushner. However, documents signed by the Justice's top career
official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott School, provide no evidence as to the grounds
for the waiver. It's actually so vague that it doesn't even state why Mueller would
need the release.
"'Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller's participation in the
investigation into Russia's role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising
from the investigation,' Schools wrote in the 'authorization' signed on May 18, one day after
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position ."
The Justice Management Division of the agency found a two-page "recommendation memorandum"
per POLITICO's request, but declined releasing it because it would interfere with the
"deliberative
process inside the department."
The secrecy revolving the situation could result in some Republican lawmakers and Trump
allies to raise doubts about the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Experts are
troubled that the Justice Department hasn't been more open about the information of Mueller's
waiver.
"'I think it's sloppy,' said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush. 'The conspiratorial side of me thinks somebody at Justice is not
giving you the explanation for the waiver because they want to create the impression that
Robert Mueller has a problem when Robert Mueller doesn't have a problem. This is going to
lead to Fox News conspiracy talk.'"
If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of
the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier,
reports The
Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved
dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.
Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the
answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.
"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.
"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.
"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.
"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee "
Rosenstein began.
DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information"
about payments for the dossier.
The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and
commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has
been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion
in the 2016 election.
Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was
discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are
involved in it as
well.
"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an
informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to
Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ
have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."
CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from
his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.
The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to
fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole
investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Set of YouTube video on the subject. Some exchanges (especially the first two) are very interesting indeed. Although Rosenstein
mostly ignored the questions.
There are several facts which suggest that employees of CIA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), sympathetic to the neoliberal/globalist wing of Democrat Party (Clinton wing), used the power of their offices and (with the
assistance of foreign nationals) tried to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain
information to prevent the election of Donald Trump, to collect "insurance" -- compromising materials on him in case he win, and after
his surprise win, to provide a basis for his impeachment and removal from the Office by forcing on his administration the Special Prosecutor.
From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions are
protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.
In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of the
Constitution. That is the definition of national security state.
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
"... What about the Logan Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ..."
"... Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations." ..."
"... I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case. ..."
"... Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real ..."
One of the unfortunate ironies of the manufactured "Russiagate" controversy is the perception of the FBI as a friend of liberty and
justice. But the FBI has never been a friend of liberty and justice. Rather, as James Bovard
writes , it "has a long
record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that 'the FBI has
the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.' This has practically been the Bureau's motif since its
creation in 1908 . The FBI has always used its 'good guy' image to keep a lid on its crimes."
Bovard has made a vocation of cataloging the FBI's many offenses against liberty and justice, for which we are forever in his
debt.
Things are certainly not different today. Take the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general who spent less than a
month as Donald Trump's national-security adviser. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection with conversations
he had with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, between Trump's election and inauguration. One need not
be an admirer of Flynn – and for many reasons I certainly am not – to be disturbed by how the FBI has handled this case.
One ought to be immediately suspicious whenever someone is charged with or pleads guilty to lying to the FBI without any underlying
crime being charged. Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy
points
out :
When a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty
to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea
proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken
by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the
investigation.
That is not happening in Flynn's situation. Instead, like [former Trump foreign-policy "adviser" George] Papadopoulos, he is
being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
When the FBI questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, it already had the transcripts of those conversations – the
government eavesdrops on the representatives of foreign governments, among others, and Flynn had been identified, or "unmasked,"
as the ambassador's conversation partner. The FBI could have simply told Flynn the transcripts contained evidence of a crime (assuming
for the sake of argument they did) and charged him with violating the Logan Act or whatever else the FBI had in mind.
But that's not what happened. Instead, the FBI asked Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, apparently to test him. If he
lied (which would mean he's pretty stupid since he once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and must have known about the transcripts!)
or had a bad memory, he could have been charged with lying to the FBI.
What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap
by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an
FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn's recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts
of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency.
In other words, the Justice Department wasn't seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
– the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations
and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the US government could be put to use criminalizing
otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn's prosecution represents a troubling precedent.
Why didn't the FBI charge Flynn with an underlying crime? It might be because his conversations with Kislyak were not criminal.
McCarthy writes:
A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the
Russians – initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing
the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis
for a "collusion" case arising out of Russia's election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime – he'd
be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.
David Stockman shows
that the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller themselves indicate the Flynn-Kislyak conversations contained no evidence of criminal
behavior.
Flynn spoke to Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate tensions after President Obama imposed sanctions last December
for the alleged election meddling and to askthatRussia not vote to condemn Israel , via a UN Security
Council resolution, for its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In other words, not only were Flynn's discussions with
Kislyak unexceptional – presidential transition-team foreign-policy officials have spoken with representatives of other governments
in the past – but the content of those discussions should have raised no suspicions. Would non-escalation of the sanctions controversy
or a UN veto have undermined Obama's foreign policy? I don't see how. (True, the Obama administration abstained on the resolution,
but would Obama have objected had Russia vetoed it? By the way, Russia voted for it, and the resolution passed, as it should have.)
The Flynn plea certainly does nothing to indicate "collusion" with the Russians. For one thing, the conversations were after the
election. And perhaps more important, Kislyak was not looking for favors from Flynn; on the contrary, Flynn was lobbying the Russians
(successfully on the sanctions – Vladimir Putin did not retaliate – and unsuccessfully on the UN resolution.) Where's the evidence
of Russian influence on the Trump team? There was foreign influence, but it was from Israel, a
regular meddler in the American political process . All indications are that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump son-in-law
and special envoy to everywhere Jared Kushner to lobby the world to defeat the UN resolution. Kushner, who has helped
finance
illegal Israeli settlements , then directed Flynn to call every Security Council member, not just Russia.
What about the Logan
Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized
"correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United
States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both."
Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply
to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations."
Note also that only two indictments
have been brought in 218 years: in 1803 and 1852. Both cases were dropped. Far more serious contacts with foreign governments have
occurred. In 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon (with help from Henry Kissinger who was working in the Johnson
administration) had a representative
persuade
the president of South Vietnam to boycott the peace talks President Lyndon Johnson had been arranging with North Vietnam. That
decision most likely prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in combat deaths that would not have occurred. Unlike the Flynn case,
Nixon's action undercut the sitting president's policy and, more important, the interests of the American people.
I hold no brief for Flynn, whose
conduct while working for
Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan,
his dubious efforts
on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone
cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case.
Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they
have evidence of real offenses against persons and property, bring charges. Otherwise, leave us all alone.
As "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
does not have time frame they are not limited to election campaign and allow fishing expedition into Trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; ..."
"... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; ..."
After this striking admission, in effect acknowledging the weakness of the "Russian
collusion" narrative more than year into the investigation and media hysteria, CNN goes on to
report that these claimed grand jury subpoenas extend completely outside the scope of the
supposed "Russia" investigation. CNN describes some subpoenas as "unconnected to the 2016
elections" and gives examples, including the tenant lists of Trump Organization properties and
documents related to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
For the record, according to his order of appointment ,
Mueller's independent investigation was to be limited to:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).
Regulation 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a) is part of the federal regulations authorizing special
counsels. It expands a special counsel's jurisdiction to crimes, such as perjury or obstruction
of justice, that interfere with his original named responsibility.
"... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the
legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into
potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Cornyn spoke out via Twitter, in response to a tweet by former Attorney General Eric Holder,
who defended Mueller against criticism and against efforts to urge the president to remove him
from his post.
Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the American people, Republicans in Congress be
forewarned:any attempt to remove Bob Mueller will not be tolerated.These are BS attacks on
him/his staff that are blatantly political-designed to hide the real wrongdoing. Country not
party
In response, Cornyn tweeted to Holder, "You don't" (referring to Holder's claim to be
speaking "on behalf of the vast majority of the American people."
He added later that "Mueller needs
to clean house of partisans," referring to reports that FBI agent Peter Strzok had been removed
from the investigation due to anti-Trump texts, and that other lawyers on the Mueller team have
expressed strongly anti-Trump feelings or supported the campaign of his 2016 opponent, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Later, asked by the Washington Post 's in-house liberal columnist, Greg Sargent,
whether he would accept the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation, Cornyn suggested that would
depend on the outcome:
The left-wing HuffPost translated that remark as meaning that Cornyn would only consider the
probe legitimate if "if Republicans like his findings."
However, a more generous interpretation would be that Cornyn would wait to see if Mueller
remained within his mandate, or used his sweeping powers to investigated unrelated matters.
The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond
corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.
Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of
interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from
expanding his s not on a witch hunt.
"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I
have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on
"Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting
attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."
Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already
has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly
colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever
surfaced.
Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of
President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled
a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the
vote.
What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever
he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs
to recuse himself.
After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself
caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI
Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction
of justice.
Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or
didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller
interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.
Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16
lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If
the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican
donors?
It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's
mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many
Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the
president of the United States?
That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would
be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.
Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017
Robert Mueller does have massive conflict of interest -- Strzok-gate proves his inability to
run a dispassionate investigation
Notable quotes:
"... we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America." ..."
Waters said, "The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump.
But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his
presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters.
Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America."
"... Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling. ..."
"... Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for an indictment. ..."
"... Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk. ..."
"... There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly. ..."
"... I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost. ..."
"... The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party, murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, State Department and White House, etc etc etc. ..."
"... Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by calling Trump and his base deplorables. ..."
"... People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump. ..."
"... Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary. ..."
"... IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a "botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch? ..."
"... At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump without breaking stride. ..."
"... The Mueller shenanigans have for months been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy. ..."
"... The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to force him from office. ..."
"... My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left loathes. ..."
"... Listen to the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and conquer." ..."
"... Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins. At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist string-pullers. ..."
Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution
denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's
expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be
ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.
Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for
refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And
Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July
2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in
transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft
of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for
an indictment.
We also now know that helping to edit Comey's first draft to soften its impact was Deputy
FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia,
received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump
to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow
fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a
dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump
hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out
Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for
hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the
investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to
tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.
In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a
connection between Hillary's campaign and Russian spies -- to find dirt to smear and destroy
Trump and his campaign -- has been fairly well established.
By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the
Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on
Trump. Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and
FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the
U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels. While the truth
of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey's FBI rose like a hungry trout on
learning of its contents. There are credible allegations Comey's FBI sought to hire Steele and
used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump -- and that its contents
were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.
This week, we learned that the Justice Department's Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion
during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing
is starting to stink.
Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree? Is Mueller's Dump Trump team
investigating the wrong campaign?
There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to
break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump
has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted
and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to
convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the
executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go
quietly.
In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there's gonna be a "whole lotta shakin' goin'
on."
Trump has had to work with corrupt officials in govt, overwhelming bureaucracy, unions, media
and criminal elements. All present in anti-Trump DC.
I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile
elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and
Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost.
The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from
Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from
the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton
Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party,
murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS,
State Department and White House, etc etc etc.
There is no equivalent trail of collusion, corruption, fraud, slander, sedition etc from
Trump, the GOP or the Conservative Party while the DNC and the Mueller investigation
reeks.
Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired
proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and
sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by
calling Trump and his base deplorables.
I think Trump is playing nice and being patient. He is fighting back but with great
restraint. I don't think Trump has pulled out all guns. My guess, if and when this does not
work, then Sessions and Rosenstein will be fired and replaced with people who will have
special prosecutors investigate the Mueller investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama,
the FBI and the DOJ. Imagine how devastating it would be to release information proving Bill
Clintons rapes and murders. Hillary may be a master at deflection and obfuscation but Trump
will scorch and burn. Of this I have no doubt. Infact, it would not surprise me if Trump has
someone in the intelligence community reporting directly to him and covertly performing these
investigations so Trump can either scorch and burn in the media, in the press room or to
appoint special counsels for what I cited above.
People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama
but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump.
"In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found."
Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC
who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination
campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary.
IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a
"botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch?
The media tells us this administrations support is waning, so impeachment is a hot topic. I am
not convinced the American people en mass will support the process.
Most of these comments are almost as ridiculous as 'RussiaGate' itself. One must have a very
strong bias to believe any of this (I am a lifelong Democrat, but I'm still able to think).
At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and
more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump
without breaking stride.
"Unfortunately, your nay-sayers seem confined to calling you a "Do-Do Head" and other remarks
more suited to a preschool classroom."
Amen to that. They might be willfully ignorant. The Mueller shenanigans have for months
been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed
Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy.
The neocons forgot that Richard Nixon saved Israel in the 1973 war. He emptied the NATO
reserves to replenish their lost weapons. Had he not done this, maybe a negotiated peace
based on a fair fight would have negated many of the problems we face today? Then Ford came
along and they realized Oops! A mistake has been made. Carter stopped drinking the neocon
KoolAide when the facts became irrefutable. Comparing Nixon to Trump is a non-starter. Nixon
had an incredibly high-IQ and he was pro-America first, second, .nth.
I remain a huge fan of Pres Nixon. I often think he should have fought it out. Having chosen
not to do so – he did indeed go quietly. And he did so for reasons unrelated to
Watergate.
He also remains one of the most astute and intelligent men we have ever had in the WH. Had
he been an insider, he would not have had faced the storm that came by way a lot of
hyperbolic nonsense. It easy to forget how much he and his admin accomplished despite the
period.
I remain supportive of Pres. Trump and despite areas of disagreement, I have yet to see
any evidence that would even hint that he should resign. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is uniquely on a path to destruction
from Pres Trump admin.
-- -- -- -- -- --
"4 indictment and or guilt pleas. Nothing there you say?"
I don't think you grasp the breadth that a SP has. It is virtually limitless. That means
one can indicted for something that is accused years before and totally unrelated to the
original purposes of the appointment. It was that breadth that bothered Pres. Nixon. And as
it turned out he was concerned with good reason.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Middle East was causing a huge recession that led to Democratic wave in 1974."
The die were cast, despite all of the issues, Pres Nixon out maneuvered and outsmarted his
critics on the issues and they bit one card, charges of misbehavior on the heels of a very
contentious foreign policy. He could have only survived had he just chosen to readily give on
the plotters and moved on. Pardoning them later.
His choice to protect his legacy in its entirety -- led to bad decisions, that fed the
appearance of guilt -- when the tapes came out --
it was done, despite little of anything incriminating on them. He chose to depart quietly.
And in the end, so nil was his accusations that he has had his tenure revived and I suspect
with time, that will continue.
The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out
to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election
that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to
force him from office.
This is an obvious truth, whether you want to call it a deep state conspiracy or something
else. Trump is an imperfect man, but he has good ideas and plans for improving the life of
the ordinary citizen.
One of the ways I know he is essentially decent is the hysterical hatred the left has for
him. The left is the true enemy of this country, not Russia or radical Islam. In the past 50
years they have done great harm to this country.
The Conservative establishment has been utterly ineffective at stopping the destructive
onslaght of the left, and in matters of foreign policy, have proven to be thoroughly corrupt
and dishonest.
My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but
endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel
unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the
absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the
world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it
consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an
Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man
at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left
loathes.
If Trump is successfully removed from office, I predict a breakout of serious unrest from
the people.
Do you have multiple personalities? One moment you are defending true conservatism and the
next you seem to be supporting somebody because they have an R next to their name. Trump is a
serious danger to our country. Far more than ISIS or any Muslim terrorists.
George Washington wrote a letter of farewell to the American People in 1796, in which he
warned against the corruption of self-interested political parties. He called them political
factions, but he is referring to the corruption and treasonous tendencies of the Democrat and
Republican Parties of today, who are much more interested in the advancement of their party
than the well-being of the Country, the protection of the Constitution or the rule of
law.
Both of these now treasonous parties are funded and controlled by much the same global
financial interests and are currently more loyal to their foreign paymasters -- which
includes many foreign despots -- than they are to our country. The corruption of each of the
two major political parties feeds on that of the other. Both parties have grown into
foreign-controlled monsters. Individual Congressmen take orders from the party leadership,
the lapdogs of their party bosses, instead of serving the interests of the nation.
The extreme partisanship and generalized demonization of members of the other party is a
form of brainwashing that keeps Democrats and Republicans voting for their respective
parties, no matter how corrupt the politicians of their own party have become. Listen to
the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an
unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and
conquer." People should concentrate on specific misdeeds of individuals and not just be
the cheerleaders of their own party. Both parties are parasitical entities feeding on the
rotting carcass of America, which they have created.
Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party
nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political
factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the
Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins.
At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only
goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist
string-pullers.
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Pretty interesting and revealing video of the interview...
There is indeed probable cause to conclude, meaning indictable offenses, that employees of the Department of Justice and/or the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), sympathetic to the Democrat Party, used the power of their offices and with the assistance of
foreign nationals to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain information to
prevent the election of Donald Trump or to provide a basis for his impeachment should he win.
From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions
protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.
In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of
the Constitution. That is the definition of tyranny.
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
In November. Sessions
pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier
paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely
unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You
can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it
meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a
special counsel "
A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have
renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the
FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials
conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary
Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's
beahvior. The
officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General
Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to
his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while
both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia
investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion
based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the
CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on
5then-candidate Trump .
A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last
week referencing an "
insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I
want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way
he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in
the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "
House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by
Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for
Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet
sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group
on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson,
co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr
Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in
front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce
and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were
released the same day .
So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations"
here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:
Did Peter Strzok innocently tell his mistress that there was an " insurance policy"
against a Trump win, which likely referenced the Russia investigation which GOP lawmakers
think was based on an unverified dossier?
Was Peter Strzok innocently texting Lisa Page " F Trump " while he was the lead
investigator on the Clinton email case?
Was Peter Strzok's edit of the phrase "Gross negligence" to "extremely careless"
innocent? It very innocently changed the entire legal standing of the case from criminal
conduct to a layman's opinion of carelessness.
18 U.S. Code '
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Was Peter Strzok innocently calling Trump " a f*cking idiot " and a "
loathsome human" before investigating him?
Did FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's "damage control team" innocently change their
conclusion that Hillary Clinton's server was " possibly " hacked, rather than " reasonably
likely " - language which significantly altered the seriousness of Clinton's mishandling of
classified information?
Were all references to the FBI working with other members of the intelligence community
on Clinton's private server innocently scrubbed from Comey's exoneration statement - making
it look like a much smaller investigation?
Before he was demoted for doing so - did senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr innocently meet
with MI6 spy Christopher Steele who assembled the salacious 'Trump-Russia' dossier, and then
also innocently meet with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS?
Fusion commissioned Steele to create the dossier, which relied on senior Russian
officials.
Did Fusion GPS innocently hire Bruce Ohr's CIA wife, Nellie Ohr, to gather damaging
information on President Trump? If there weren't such innocent explanations for everything,
one might think Nellie Ohr could have possibly passed information from the DOJ to Fusion GPS
and vice versa.
Did Hillary Clinton and the DNC innocently pay Fusion GPS $1,024,408 through law firm
Perkins Coie, which then paid Steele $168,000?
In addition to the 'Trump-Russia' dossier, did Fusion GPS innocently arrange the Trump
Tower "setup" meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian Attorney? Or
attempt to link Donald Trump to billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Or try to push
the debunked claim that a secret email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa
bank - which Alfa bank executives are suing Fusion GPS over?
The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press
have more innocent explanations...
No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being
perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by
the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency
that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their
sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to
reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we
have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And
yet there is room for hope.
"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not
defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to
do.
Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental
gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.
"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All
lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion
controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to,
supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."
This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do
a search about BAR association.
Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name
Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.
The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have
against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating
e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr.
Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's
death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the
EXECUTIVE branch) .
This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to
create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.
Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe
even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This
seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.
I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special
Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing
expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken
Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously
alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.
And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs
with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that
counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other
way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination.
Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like
that either, but that's the deal.
I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution
and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police
state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is
indeed correct.
And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any
legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way
over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for
America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good
lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.
Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book
reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain,
Sessions.......
It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm
in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and
get a copy...."
"No, not until the lawyer says so!"
Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who
gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate
universe!
At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche
bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ...
get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...
Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary
Clinton's Crimes.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 -
TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of
London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.
Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest
rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law &
Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.
We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.
We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face
Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is
extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I
can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.
Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would
have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.
Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else)
with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials?
And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?
This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political
eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.
Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it
is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.
It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are
the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become
serious. Which is likely no time soon.
All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed
Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.
Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire
operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans
motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him.
The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's
proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.
The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the
Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President
of the United States.
This is treason.
This is sedition.
People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.
Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....
No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.
This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has
no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.
I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers
who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them
without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.
No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the
Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be
chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days.
Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.
The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand,
their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of
classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc.,
would eventually be exposed.
Those complicit did not care!
They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten
wealth.
We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.
US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil
empire.
When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team
should walk free.
This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused
to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we
have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please
as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We
have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from
proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have
bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed
at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is
trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist
takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country
from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all
see the ugly truth behind it...
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump
Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in
July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his
information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election
and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's
Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general
at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just
steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban
executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice
Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts
with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with
Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the
Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and
Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after
learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and
moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug
enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of
information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court
which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI
has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to
these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the
Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked
an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a
hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and
the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid
Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that
we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been
reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to
spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI
obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is
despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been
provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice
Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee
Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's
the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if
you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition
research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it
to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong
as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both
the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate
investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's
statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now
also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate
investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn.
It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017
during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it
is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this
interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the
indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a
set-up intended to entrap him .
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was
Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher
Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the
Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending
anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having
an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only
came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an
astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was
apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true
reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported
on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that
Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or
manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents,
like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If
anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are
clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim
Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody
left on the Mueller team. There has to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm
it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was
apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director
for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his
sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional
investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances
surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his
angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is
that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility
collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be
verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is
right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress
of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate
investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report
about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows
that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community
– Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms
that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President
Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump
Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence
Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the
Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided
the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the
FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly
likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump
Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server
investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who
was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to
its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind
many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration
at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign
the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance
during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton's opponent .
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely
understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle
– as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks
– as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter
falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was
only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from
Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being
spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate
investigation continues to grind on.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are
facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate
investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the
surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is
what I said nine
months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for
a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second
Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second
Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in
the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened
during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the
US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation
to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion
to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller
– should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real
scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US
national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of
Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately
by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to
demand it is a hopeful sign.
In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely
right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a
Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated
Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no."
As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised
dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had
long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.
Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.
Consider the original Russiagate offense.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.
If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime?
Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what
the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much
hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining
your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this
out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it
will sink in.
There is nothing there.
Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
"... ccording to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel," ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... * Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network. ..."
"... Published in www.newcoldwar.org (New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond) ..."
Why are the media paying scant attention to Michael Flynn's admissions about Israel?
The indictment of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn on December 1 has confirmed
that Donald Trump's inner circle colluded with a foreign power before entering the White House
-- just not the foreign power that has been the subject of our national fixation for the past
year. To be sure, the jury is still out on Russia, though there are new grounds for questioning
the case for a plot tying the Kremlin to Trump Tower. But with Flynn's plea, we can now say for
certain that the Trump team did collude -- with Israel.
To recap, Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations
with then–Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the period after Trump's November 2016
victory. As Foreign Policy
previously reported , Flynn reached out to Kislyak as part of "a vigorous diplomatic bid"
to undermine President Obama's decision to allow a December 2016 Security Council resolution
condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories. The indictment
fills in some details.
According to the charge sheet ,
Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his
reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through
witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump
transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel,"
The New York Times
reported after Flynn's court appearance on Friday. "Investigators have learned that Mr.
Flynn and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner took the lead in those efforts" -- efforts which
failed to change a single vote, including Russia's, which backed the measure in defiance of the
Trump-Netanyahu subversion attempt.
In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election
occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless.
The next contact between Flynn and Kislyak was more productive. In late December, Obama
imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. A day later,
Flynn called the Russian ambassador to request that the Kremlin, according to the plea
document, "only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." Flynn's overture came
after a Trump transition colleague told him that the incoming administration "did not want
Russia to escalate the situation." By all accounts, Russia complied.
Whatever one thinks about this covert attempt to reduce tensions with a nuclear-armed power,
it demonstrates an effort by the Trump transition, as with the Israel vote, to undermine the
outgoing administration's policy. Trump critics have seized on that
as a violation of the Logan Act, which bars citizens from having unauthorized negotiations with
foreign governments in a dispute with the United States. But the Logan Act has seldom been used
except as a partisantalkingpoint
, not a prosecutable offense. More importantly, there's the question as to whether Flynn's
overture on sanctions prove a quid pro quo [a favor or advantage granted or expected in return
for something].
Notwithstanding the post-election contact with Flynn, not only has Russia failed to gain a
reduction in sanctions but its relations with Washington have deteriorated. In early August,
Trump signed new sanctions on Russia overwhelmingly approved by Congress. The administration
recently presented lawmakers with a list of targets that "reads like a who's who of the Russian
defense and intelligence sectors," The New York Times noted. In September, Trump shut
down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two annexes in New York City and Washington,
DC. Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced Russia's "malicious tactics"
against the West and vowed that sanctions imposed over Russian's role in Ukraine "will remain
in place until Russia reverses the actions that triggered them."
Meanwhile, Trump has enlarged NATO over Russia's objections, carried out the "biggest
military exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War" on Russia's border, appointed several
anti-Russia hawks to key posts, and continues to deliberate over whether to supply Ukraine with
a weapons package that Obama himself rejected out of fear it would worsen the country's civil
war.
In the latest flare-up, Russia has ordered international media outlets to register as
foreign agents in retaliation for the Justice Department first doing so to Washington-based
RT America .
It is, of course, possible that all of this is an elaborate ruse to mask the secret, as yet
unproven, conspiracy that many insist will lead to Trump's downfall. The fact that Flynn is now
a cooperating witness has refueled hopes that this day is finally approaching. After all, why
would Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia if he did not have something to hide? And why
would Mueller offer him a plea deal if Flynn wasn't offering him a bigger fish to fry? (One
plausible motive,
as Buzzfeed notes , is that Flynn may have lied to hide his potential Logan Act
violation.)
Only time will tell whether Flynn has something to offer Mueller, or whether Mueller has
gotten from him what he can. In the meantime, more than a year after the election, we still
have exactly zero evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government -- nor, it must be repeated, any evidence to back up U.S. intelligence officials'
claims that the Russian government meddled in the election. We do have instances of Trump
campaign figures' -- namely, Donald Trump Jr. and low-level adviser George Papadopoulos --
making contact with people that they thought were Russian government intermediaries. But
whatever they were told or believed, there is still no proof that their contacts led to an
actual Kremlin connection.
What we do have is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Israel to subvert the U.S.
government's official position at the United Nations Security Council. Yet reaction to that
news has been quite a departure from the standards of Russiagate when it comes to foreign
meddling.
The contrast was put on stark display on Sunday, when Jared Kushner appeared with
billionaire Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban at the latter's annual forum on
U.S.-Israel relations. Saban took a moment to thank Kushner for his role in the subversion
effort that Flynn admitted to have undertaken on Israel's behalf. "To be honest with you, as
far as I know there's nothing illegal there," Saban told his stage companion. "But I think that
this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much."
For all of the fears of Russian oligarchs' having influence over Trump, the comment from
this American oligarch reveals a great deal about who really influences practically everyone in
Washington, Republican or Democrat. Saban was not a Trump donor. He is, in fact, Bill and
Hillary Clinton's top all-time financial supporter,
to the tune of more than $25 million ; a benefactor whose generosity has helped build not
just the Clinton Library but also the Democratic National Committee's
headquarters.
But there has been no outrage from democracy-defending #Resistance stalwarts over Saban's
comments (and the Israeli subversion effort he endorsed). The same for
news of Kushner's failure to disclose his leadership of a group that funded the illegal
Israeli settlements that he tried to protect at the United Nations. And now we await to see how
those who agonize over foreign influence on Trump will respond to his reported plans to move
the American embassy to Jerusalem -- "a decision that would break with decades of U.S. policy
and could fuel violence in the Middle East," as Haaretz
notes .
It is unlikely that Trump will be challenged on Israel, because his approach is harmonic
with a bipartisan consensus cemented in large part by the financial contributions of
billionaires like Saban and his Republican pro-Israeli government counterpart, Sheldon Adelson.
Hence, there are no editorials or opinion pieces denouncing Israel's ' Plot Against
America ' or '
War on America ', or warnings that ' Odds Are, Israel Owns
Trump ', or explorations of ' What
Israel Did to Control the American Mind '. Likewise, there will be no new groups forming
dubbed the ' Committee to Investigate
Israel ' or the ' Tel Aviv
Project '. In fact it is more than likely that, going forward, the media will give
Israelgate the same treatment as cable's top Russiagate sleuth, MSNBC 's Rachel
Maddow, gave during her exhaustive Flynn coverage so far, which is to not even mention it.
This weekend furnished us with another important contrast. Flynn's indictment was followed
hours later by the passage of the Senate Republican tax bill, which stands to be one of the
largest upward transfers of wealth in U.S. history. If protecting democracy is our goal, we may
want to tune out the Russia-obsessed pundits and look closer to home.
* Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network.
Published in www.newcoldwar.org
(New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond)
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last
two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.
That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely
celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.
... ... ...
Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the
story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers
were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.
How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to
destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying
to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British
spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for
the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the
intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I
get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?
There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton
of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's
up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back.
By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all
therefore fair game for DJT.
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this
piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI
'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched
reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
PT, I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an
extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot
over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies
are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong
to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).
When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe
all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies,
socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such
a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for
the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have
convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts,
immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did
mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and
NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever
legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences
should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.
This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.
The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in
this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have
no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.
If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It
may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and
present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition
party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned,
we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed
to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of
his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion
of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?
I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider
her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not
be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality -
politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?
You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get
mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about
this? The facts are clear enough, for once.
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on
several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence
man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality.
... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist
who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their
reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed
all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure
into power.[6]"-wiki
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples
of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away
at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful
campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like
Brazile's book. But faster please
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive
Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans.
I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:
Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with
Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes
additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures.
The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation
on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for
the delay, "it was complicated".
That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve
your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved.
Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects
of this model:
"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed."
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in
fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500
This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly
have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation
of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American
people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That
is as it should be.
Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump
traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair
in War and politics".
He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with
the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman.
In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference
for the classic method of donning trousers.
OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):
Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization
of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from
it. ....
Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear
of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....
The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein
organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of
course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse.
....
His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama
attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to
lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The
unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .
As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented
about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.
DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and
[guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual"
in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not
want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced
or eliminated.
Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent
and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting
Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the
Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve
some problems and reduce the importance of government.
I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death
fight with the Media.
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control
Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.
I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians?
Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?
If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his
puppet?
Asking for a friend.
Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group
in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy
theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are
sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe
that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months
now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe.
Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves
from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.
Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case.
IMO, we are about to though.
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've
just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful
about today's information.
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public
sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would
have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but
I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him
has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's
comments on this thread.
One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades.
Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.
Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these
people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily
- " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "
They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment
was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed
by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished
The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.
" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions
of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.
You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and
zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially
out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously,
because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three
generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.
"... But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes, overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court. ..."
"... Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized - the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case. ..."
top lieutenant
to Robert S. Mueller III on the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible
links to the Trump campaign. Significantly, Mr. Weissmann is an expert in converting defendants into collaborators - with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective.
If Mr. Mueller is the stern-eyed public face of the investigation, Mr. Weissmann, 59, is its pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit
bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies that includes
professional killers and white-collar criminals.
... ... ...
But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia
members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes,
overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court.
...Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized -
the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case.
"There's a name," the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh warned listeners last week, recapping the "intimidating technique"
afoot. "Weissmann."
"... The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent; among Hillary Clinton voters, 34 percent. ..."
"... "Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed. ..."
"... 63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 54 percent overall say "independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President Trump 's aides "harsher treatment" during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
Despite the intricacies of the Russian collusion investigation, voters have some clear
opinions about the situation, according to a wide-ranging Harvard Center for American Political
Studies-Harris survey -- which weighs in at 204 pages. It is a long poll, and a telling one: A
majority of American voters say special counsel Robert Mueller has a "conflict of
interest" in the investigation.
The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of
interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of
Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who
voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent;
among Hillary
Clinton voters, 34 percent.
Has the investigation itself revealed any evidence of collusion? Thirty eight percent of the
voters overall said that no evidence of such activities had been found, 35 percent said there
was evidence, while 27 percent did not know the answer. Three fourths of the respondents also
believe that "the special counsel is trying to make a case for obstruction of justice against
the president," the poll found. More numbers in the Poll du Jour at column's end.
PAGING MR. SESSIONS
Just a comment from Rep. Matt Gaetz -- Florida Republican and a member of the House
Judiciary Committee -- made during a discussion with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade . The
pair were discussing the aforementioned investigation into potential "Russia collusion" and the
Trump campaign.
"Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do
his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased
people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If
he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the
issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed.
... ... ...
POLL DU JOUR
76 percent of U.S. voters think the "special counsel" in the Russia investigation is trying
to find collusion between President Trump and Russian officials; 69
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democrats agree.
63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton
email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74
percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree.
54 percent overall say "independent counsel
Robert Mueller has conflicts of
interest as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40
percent of Democrats agree.
36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President
Trump 's aides "harsher treatment"
during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56
percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree.
25 percent say the special counsel does not think a charge of obstruction of justice in the
investigation is possible; 31 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents and 19 percent
of Democrats agree.
Source: A Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of 1,995 registered U.S. voters conducted between Dec.
8-11.
Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's
ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State
Department during the Obama administration.
Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."
"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton
investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now.
We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit
because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways
Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."
"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said
yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it
looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."
"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer
baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans?
If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special
examination of this whole issue."
Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel
yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department
just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good
man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and
therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.
On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked
by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions
demurred.
"... James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. ..."
"... We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. ..."
"... Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities. ..."
"... Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server--he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency,
when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help.
The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was
incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with
hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang,
having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as
the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick
as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including
covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for
the Clintons, no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times,
Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times
between 1991 and 2017.
Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would
be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases
have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998's case Hamburg. V. Clinton.
Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.
They are a DC Globalist Power Couple, and they mean to destroy Donald Trump under the bidding of their Globalist Masters. Rod
Rosenstein should not have any position in President Trump's administration, let alone one with so much power to harm the Office
of the Presidency.
Mueller is also a Deep State lackey, even acting as delivery boy for Hillary's State Department, hand transporting ten grams of
highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. It must only be coincidence that this happened at the same time as
Hillary and her henchman John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America's
proven uranium reserves. Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of
dollars from Russian donors.
Comey, Rosenstein, and their patron Mueller are truly the Three Amigos of the Deep State. Joined long ago in mutual regard, owing
allegiance only to each other and the enshrined bureaucracy that created them. As their actions show, they desire to thwart the will
of the people and depose the duly elected President of the United States of America by using all the powers at their disposal.
"... "Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock." ..."
"... In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.
..."
"... Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. ..."
"... In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking to
the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died anyway
that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of presidential
elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less restraint than
even Hoover could. ..."
This Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election | The NationThis Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election Throughout his career,
J. Edgar Hoover used the bureau to meddle in presidential politics and secure his own power. By
Jeff Kisseloff October 31, 2016
Even the FBI's history of insinuating itself into presidential campaigns, this latest October surprise shouldn't have been any
surprise at all.
As early as 1919, Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, the progressive A. Mitchell Palmer, deployed bureau agents in an eponymous
operation to round up and deport alleged radical immigrants. The
Palmer Raids were ostensibly a response to a series of bombings,
but it became apparent that Palmer had had something more in mind when he threw his hat into the ring for the 1920 Democratic presidential
nomination and ran on a proto-Trumpian agenda of "undiluted Americanism." Palmer didn't get past the first ballot, however, and ultimately
the raids' most lasting impact was Palmer's decision to have his young assistant administer the arrests. The official, whose own
youthful ambition earned him the nickname "Speed," was 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover.
Following the Teapot Dome scandal, the seemingly incorruptible Hoover was appointed to head the bureau. If money didn't tempt
Hoover, power did. While he managed to survive the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, Roosevelt nearly brought Hoover's career
to a premature halt. After his election, FDR announced that Montana Senator Thomas J. Walsh, a fierce opponent of the Palmer raids,
would be his attorney general. Walsh told friends that Hoover would be replaced. But that month, Walsh married a Cuban woman in Havana.
After flying back to Florida, the couple boarded a train to Washington. While passing through North Carolina, Walsh's wife found
him on the floor, dead, the apparent victim of too much honeymooning.
Homer Cummings, who replaced Walsh, retained Hoover. The director quickly realized the way to keep his job was to make himself
indispensable to FDR. Wiretapping was a relatively new investigative tool, and as it turned out Roosevelt was eager to use it against
his political opponents on the left and right. Up for reelection in 1936, he had Hoover eavesdrop on the leftist members of the Newspaper
Guild and other suspected members of the Communist Party, despite the party's attempt to establish a "popular front."
Then, as FDR began to gear up for a third term, Hoover went after Father Charles E. Coughlin, the ultraconservative radio priest
who was a major thorn in Roosevelt's side. In January 1940, 17 members of Coughlin's pro-Hitler Christian Front were arrested by
the FBI, charged with plotting to kill several congressmen. Whether the charges were accurate or not, the arrests finished Coughlin
as an influential political figure.
That same year, the bureau sought to quash the opposition of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade veterans with raids on its offices. But
it was in 1948 that Hoover unleashed the FBI for the first time to further his own career. Like everyone who was not a member of
the Truman family, Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover's former assistant William Sullivan recalled
that Hoover believed if he used the bureau's resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping
stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.
"Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock."
At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace's third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target
of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace
staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with
the bureau's efforts. Truman's victory marked an end to Hoover's ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the
director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.
While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech, the FBI's efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson
(perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover's biographer,
Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were
spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine
Jorgensen.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be
retained.
Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. As a last-ditch effort to help the
troubled Hubert Humphrey campaign, Johnson announced the resumption of peace talks with North Vietnam. He soon learned, however,
that South Vietnam's president Nguyen Van Thieu was sabotaging the effort, convinced he could get a better deal if Nixon won.
Madame Anna Chennault, a GOP leader and a close friend of South Vietnam's ambassador Bui Diem, was the person whispering in Thieu's
ear. Gentry writes that when information turned up that she was communicating to Nixon through Spiro Agnew, Johnson thought he had
clinched the election for Humphrey, but Agnew's phone records just happened to turn up missing. The investigation was closed and
Nixon went on to a narrow victory.
In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking
to the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died
anyway that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of
presidential elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less
restraint than even Hoover could.
In 1948, Henry Wallace grasped the larger issues stemming from the FBI's actions, declaring, "We Americans have far more to fear
from those actions which are intended to suppress political freedom than from the teaching of ideas with which we are in disagreement."
If Hoover were alive today he'd be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey's actions, perhaps a
séance would be in order to see if he still is.
"... A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. ..."
A previous version of
Monday's story by Maggie Haberman, titled "Trump's Deflections and Denials on Russia
Frustrate Even His Allies," made reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that have
supposedly all concurred in the assessment of Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential
race.
Despite the mainstream media and the political left making
constant reference for months to the "17 intelligence agencies" agreeing on Russia's
actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter
from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies
– the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
the National Security Agency (NSA).
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "17 agencies"
line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his
knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any
independent confirmation of its claims.
The phrase "17 intelligence agencies" seems to have entered the public discourse after
Hillary Clinton used it in her second debate with Trump. Despite its demonstrable inaccuracy,
it continues to feature in articles from across the mainstream media. For example, an
Associated
Press wire story that Breitbart News carried last week uncritically uses the 17-agency
figure.
For its part, the New York Times felt compelled to issue a correction after using
the same phrase. The following was added below Haberman's article:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said
Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment
was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the
American intelligence community.
Note: The figure of four agencies is reached by including Clapper's office in addition to
the three agencies that compiled the published report.
"... Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote up a correction, that is. ..."
Trump criticizes media over alleged mind-meld of '17 intelligence agencies' over Russia
meddling - The Washington Post As a matter of timing, it was odd: Last week, the New York Times
attached a lumpy correction to a story about the political dynamics of President Trump's
various proclamations on
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The story highlighted the president's
various "asterisks, wisecracks, caveats or obfuscation" about Russian cyberattacks, and made a
reference to the consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" about Russian interference.
Here's the text:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
News organizations had been repeating that "17 intelligence agencies" line for months and
months, with no corrections in sight. Why was the New York Times issuing a correction all of a
sudden? And why did the Associated Press
add a clarification one day later? Who asked for it? The New York Times declined to comment
beyond the correction. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to
comment on the record.
Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much
exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote
up a correction, that is.
"... For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." ..."
"... The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though substantial evidence pointed to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks. ..."
"... The Associated Press followed ..."
"... "In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment." ..."
For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly
dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." The firestorm first began when Hillary
Clinton – darling of the U.S. intelligence community, the mainstream press, and Wall
Street – failed to win the electoral contests that the media had been convinced was her
for the taking.
The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and
accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the
Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign
became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her
campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though
substantial evidence pointed
to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks.
Once the Russian hacker narrative became established, the media began working overtime to
connect Trump and his campaign to Russia – creating the illusion of a "bromance" between
Trump and Putin despite the fact that the two had never met. Much of the evidence
for the so-called "bromance" centered around Trump stating during the campaign that
he wanted to improve U.S.-Russia ties, which drastically deteriorated under the Obama
administration, and wanted to work with the Russians to defeat Daesh (ISIS).
The bromance and the campaign collusion narrative have been continuously and intensely
pushed by several high-ranking politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, the push has been
so intense that it
has now backfired for Democrats.
As a result, it has since
become a "crime" in the eyes of the mainstream media for any U.S. politician to interact or
to have previously interacted with any Russian official. It has also meant that defending
Russia's government or its actions could quickly turn you into
the laughingstock of the mainstream press
But some of the most prestigious news organizations in the country have been forced to
retract a major claim that has stood at the center of the Russia hacking media frenzy:
namely that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump." Last week, both the New
York Times and The Associated
Press were forced to retract the claim from several of their articles, as the
oft-repeated statement has been proven to be false.
The New York Times was first,
adding a correction to a June 25th article which stated:
"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made
by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security
Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
"In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press
reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected
by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment."
One of the most enduring data points of the whole Trump-colluded-with-Russia
fantasy was the idea that there was a unanimity among US intelligence agencies that a) the
Russians had intervened in some way, and b) that intervention was calculated to help Trump. The
collusion conspiracy theorists have thrown on a third layer which is that members of Trump's
campaign were working hand-in-glove with the Russians to do something nefarious. What? Well, we
don't know.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US
political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of
Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar
tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's
senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
The statement is tailored narrowly and only speaks to encouraging states to seek federal
help in securing their voting systems (though, given the federal government's track record in
keeping stuff secure, I'm not sure that's a great idea.)
A week later, in the final Clinton-Trump debate, Clinton made this claim
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... How about Hillary telling her banker friends in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform" had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that? ..."
"... Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and confessed to being "really good" at killing people. ..."
"... We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State". ..."
"... Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues, Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation" ..."
Wow, you really have drunk the kool-aid! Didn't you read any of the leaked emails?
How about Hillary telling her banker friends
in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform"
had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that?
And Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and
confessed to being "really good" at killing people.
The only thing you are right about is our Democracy is broken (in fact, it
never existed in the USA). Willful blindness will not make us "Stronger Together", only dismantling the "Deep State" will do that.
We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued
control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State".
turk 151 , December 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues,
Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation"
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did.
A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials
had in mind.
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele
Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the
information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November
of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the
gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator
John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000
is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.
Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had
gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute
for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy
and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence
H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics,
1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).
At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale
MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided
that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele
and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership:
Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia
article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role
in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of
Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive
enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy
Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious
way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough
of it. and neither can the NWO.
That question arise during recent senate session of Rosenstein
It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA
Director Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope. ..."
"... I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube (perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan? ..."
I've been seeing all sorts of places where this fellow Strzok's name pops up. Things like a FISA judge recusing himself. Things
like him possibly arranging things so Hillary was able to continue her run for President. At a super-right-wing site I found these
"questions".
Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her?
If Hillary didn't give Strzok the dossier, who did?
Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?
Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Clinton email case?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Trump surveillance case?
Did James Comey know that Peter Strzok was compromised when he sent him to interview Michael Flynn (where surveillance was
used to interview him based on the Steele Dossier that was presented to the FISA Court that Strzok put together?)
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope.
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:36 am
I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal
FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube
(perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So
we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering
Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults
against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved
senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the
supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that
some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's
presidency.
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state"
exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior
FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two
high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as
protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as
unfit as Trump.
In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you
are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she
sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks
column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time
when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots.
When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in
shame."
Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and
approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many
levels, not sure if that helps."
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized
Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought
he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American
people make Donald Trump the next president."
In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump
voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I
could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at
the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference
to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug.
15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before
you're 40."
It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat,
but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that
there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about
Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade
members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection
of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth
Amendment .
The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State
Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral
College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of
Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.
After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to
create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least
weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with
Russia.
In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style
ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on
watergate."
As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that
"all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the
Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to
WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any
skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic
congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony ,
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three
agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
Biased at the Creation
And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about
"hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you
that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.
Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had
in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it.
Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would
almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance
of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see
Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the
Russia-gate Narrative. "]
If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it
could explain why claims from an unverified
dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian
intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow
hotel, was added as a
classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect
Trump.
Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared
by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information
from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in
October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the
costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats'
law firm, Perkins Coie.
That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who
talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has
acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate
Trump.
Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate
investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the
time.
Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders,
unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news
organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even
at the cost of making serious reporting errors .
For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email
supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr.
that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined
Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.
Grasping for Confirmation
Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a
claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion
that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at
Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
This new "evidence" spread like wildfire across social media. As The Intercept's Glenn
Greenwald
wrote in an article critical of the media's performance, some Russia-gate enthusiasts
heralded the revelation with graphics of cannons booming and nukes exploding.
But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually
Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after WikiLeaks released the batch of DNC emails, not
Sept. 4. It appeared that "Erickson" – whoever he was – had simply alerted the
Trump campaign to the public existence of the WikiLeaks disclosure.
Greenwald
noted , "So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I
literally cannot list them all."
Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated
admissions that there was no
"17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a
preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was
riddled with conflicts of interest.
The Times'
lead editorial on Wednesday mocked reporters at Fox News for living in an "alternate
universe" where the Russia-gate "investigation is 'illegitimate and corrupt,' or so says Gregg
Jarrett, a legal analyst who appears regularly on [Sean] Hannity's nightly exercise in
presidential ego-stroking."
Though briefly mentioning the situation with Strzok's text messages, the Times offered no
details or context for the concerns, instead just heaping ridicule on anyone who questions the
Russia-gate narrative.
"To put it mildly, this is insane," the Times declared. "The primary purpose of Mr.
Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national
security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign
conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that
grows more plausible every day."
The Times fumed that "roughly three-quarters of Republicans still refuse to accept that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election – a fact that is glaringly obvious to everyone
else, including the nation's intelligence community." (There we go again with the false
suggestion of a consensus within the intelligence community.)
The Times also took to task Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, for seeking "a Special
Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 – not just Trump and Russia." The Times insisted
that "None of these attacks or insinuations are grounded in good faith."
But what are the Times editors so afraid of? As much as they try to insult and intimidate
anyone who demands serious evidence about the Russia-gate allegations, why shouldn't the
American people be informed about how Washington insiders manipulate elite opinion in pursuit
of reversing "mistaken" judgments by the unwashed masses?
Do the Times editors really believe in democracy – a process that historically has had
its share of warts and mistakes – or are they just elitists who think they know best and
turn away their noses from the smell of working-class people at Walmart?
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 9:54 pm
The NYT is just another tool of the multi-billionaire oligarchs who rule this USA from the
shadows. They fear nothing more than the light. When that investigative light gets strong
enough, more and more ordinary folks will begin to awake to the massive fraud that has been
perpetrated at their expense. And when that happens, we will finally see the Oligarchy begin
to crumble under the pressure of the 99%. The truth will out, then heads will roll ..
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 10:00 pm
Keep up the pressure – get your friends interested, tell them about CN,
Counterpunch, Strategic-Culture, Chris Hedges, etc. Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating
hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's
curiosity.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:04 am
How about also including RT in your list? It's a news and commentary site with strong
journalistic values and credibility, notwithstanding what the Administration or the MSM may
say or imply.
T.J , December 14, 2017 at 8:45 am
If RT didn't have the qualities you describe, attempts by the Administration and the MSM
to discredit it would have been successful. However they will attempt to silence it by other
means.
Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 11:59 am
Very true TJ. I found counterpunch when wapo / propornot blacklisted them. Gave 'em creds
imo. I also like mint press, occupy, naked capitalism, **world socialist website**,
disobedient media, truthout, some of Glenns work on the Intercept and my youtube subs
include: wearechange, **anonymous Scandinavia**, **the jimmy dore show**, RT America, TeleSUR
English*, Zoon Politikon, **democracy at work**, HA Goodman, theRealNews*, mintpressnews,
watching the hawks, secular talk, laura kinhtlinger, judicial watch, empire files, redacted
tonight, TBTV, a little from Julian Assange's twitter.
tina , December 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm
what about Al-Jazeera?
Erik G , December 14, 2017 at 8:03 am
Good suggestion; in such persuasion, one must respectfully suggest better sources and
avoid any conflict.
Mr. Parry has well summarized for beginners these essential counterpoints to the mass
media propaganda.
I like this use of "awakened," in contrast to the establishment culture's fascination with
"woke." People don't need to get woke. They need to become awakened. Thanks to Robert
Parry.
Walter Devine , December 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm
I thought we were waiting to hear what the evidence is found. The lack of discussion about
what they have uncovered seems to me to speak of a professional operation. Once they are done
and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose. As
for Bias, that exists in everyone to some extent or another, where was the moral outrage from
the Republicans charging this today when the Benghazi investigation was being conducted by
folks with known axes to grind themselves? It is the Washington hypocrisy machine at its most
obvious. As for the media, print or otherwise, they are just preaching to their choirs in
order to sell whatever their particular consumers are buying. Frankly I have come to expect
more from you than this article Mr. Parry, here's hoping
Robert Gardner , December 13, 2017 at 10:45 pm
I've been skeptical out the Russian conspiracy so far, but I agree with what Walter Devine
wrote.
tina , December 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm
I am still waiting . Mr. Parry can ride on his story back in the 1980's. We are in 2017,
The internet is good. What did those people in Washington do today? get rid of net
neutrality? Love you all people on CN, Happy Hanukah Merry Christmas, and Kwanzaa, And the
winter solstice. Peace to all. Love, tina everyone is going to believe that they want to
believe.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:08 am
Are you kidding about Benghazi? Obviously you have still not informed yourself about the
egregious security breakdown of the Administration or how the Benghazi facility factored into
the CIA's proxy war in Syria. (And, btw, where was Hillary "Rod up her Hiney" Clinton when
that '3AM call' came in at 4pm?
"By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order
is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI: After the September 11,
2012 attack against U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration
peddled a lie, telling the public that the attack was related to Muslims who had become
enraged at an anti-Islam YouTube video, and not a planned act of terrorism – despite
Hillary Clinton emailing Chelsea Clinton from her unsecure @clintonemail.com server the night
of the attack to say exactly that."
In 2016, [the FBI] received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" The "dossier" was a
compendium of allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled
by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House
investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee.
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed
to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could
verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two
senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could
verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI
wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times.
Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to
launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately
paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
-- Have you noticed the numbers for payments? The bank records? The names? -- these are the
evidence. Or you believe that there a Bias against the miserable Steele?
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador
in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is
that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to
head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why
putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press
would ask them, of course.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm
That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments
were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred
to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi.
Jon Adams , December 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT
question.
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm
Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article
which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank
missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended
up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing
the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a
deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing
them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries.
Thus, the CIA kept being surprised that its powerful weapons kept ending up in ISIS hands but
kept doing the same over and over: oops an oversight mistake, oops and another one, oops one
more, and another one, . the two hundredth one
Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with
another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign
tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as
much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays
an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory
even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in
over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for
justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and
denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal
ideology.
I wonder how long this can go on. So far, the indictments of the Muller team have had
nothing to do with the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Paul Manafort was indicted for tax
evasion related to lobbying business with Ukraine, mostly years ago. Michael Flynn was
indicted because when he reported a call from his holidays to the Russian ambassador to the
FBI more than three weeks later, he left out two elements (the FBI had the recordings from
the NSA, anyway, so they wouldn't have had to ask him about the telephone call). There was
nothing illegal about the contents of the telephone call (the most dubious thing was, of
course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best
hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory).
It seems quite plausible that Flynn just forgot these two elements of a telephone call in
which quite a large number of points was raised and that he pleaded guilty because of a plea
deal (otherwise he might have been indicted in connection with his lobbying work for Turkey).
Superficially, the closest to the idea of Russiagate is the indictment of Papadopoulos,
someone who played a minor role in the Trump campaign and was looking for contacts with
Russians, but, as it seems did not get very far (for some reasons he seemed to think a
Russian woman he was talking with was a relative of Putin). His actions may have been
naïve or misguided, but nothing about them was illegal, like in the case of Michael
Flynn, he is only accused of lying to the FBI about normal, legal actions.
So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere.
Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a
conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the
result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially
investigated.
The question is how they will wind down. If they just say that apart from things like
Manafort's possible tax evation and Flynn's lobbying for Israel, they have not found anything
– certainly nothing that confirms the Russiagate conspiracy theory -, that will be
quite difficult, people will demand that it is investigated how it came about that such a
conspiracy was spread and played such an influential role in political discourse for some
time. It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that
the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either.
Antiwar7 , December 14, 2017 at 7:24 am
How long should we wait until we hear of ONE, that's right, ONE piece of evidence backing
these claims up? Please answer: 2 years? 10 years? The only evidence so far amounts to "trust
us".
And that's ignoring the monumental number of pieces of false evidence that have been put
forward. That in itself makes the whole "investigation" suspicious. On top of the long,
documented history of the CIA planting false stories in the press.
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
I don't know. How long did it take the Dutch to cook the evidence to condemn Russian
partisans for the downing of the Malaysian airliner -- with Ukraine holding a gun to their
heads.
Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Dear Mr. 7, I have come to the grudging conclusion that Russia-gate is and has always been
more about Russia and Putin than about the crooked Don. If we stop to think about it, Trump
has succumbed to the deep control of the Deep-State colossus. Russia evil; Israel good! Got
it? When the pathetic wiener & crotch-grabber isn't bitchin' for Bibi and doing little
pooch tricks for Israel, he is being programmed by the pentagon and the Deep State, and
making sure that the super-rich get super richer. His own SOS Tillerson called him an effin'
moron. Enough said!
Therefore, 7, Russia-gate is all about keeping the pot boiling for the presidential
election in Russia next year. Demonizing Putin and Russia is the new great game of our era.
The NWO Nebula lusts after Russia's geostrategic location and its abundant resources. It's
1905-1925 all over again. Read the book, "Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925"
by Richard B. Spence and also take a gander at Trine Day books' website of suppressed books.
The deep-state Plutocrats and their secret societies hatch their evil little plots, while
trying to keep the rest of us in the dark. Right now, Trump is a convenient platform for
anti-Russian propaganda.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally
adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind
while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting.
That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:10 am
Once more the standard troll line about being a prior supporter, which plainly "Devine" is
not.
We are well over a year into this matter with nothing but speculation and manufactured
claims.
It is clear that Russia-gate = Israel-gate, a diversion from zionist control of the DNC.
Where is the concern of "Devine" for the lack of investigation of control of elections and
mass media by Israel?
Why does he seek to cover up the complete destruction of democracy by the foreign power
Israel?
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm
Oliver Stone had this to say on the matter on FaceBook. If you're on FB, here is the
link.
facts don't show bias walt. yeah, media sells to the public, but they're also selling (or
trading narratives for access) to the gov't. Wikileaks exposed the MSM – DNC collusion
and we've witnessed the leaks and anonymous sources from the IC. Trust the CIA?
There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically
amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady
business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business
as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think?
I personally believe that progressive hope dies at the DNC and exposing the party's lies
(their private and public views) and undemocratic practices (preliminary process,
fundraising) is the best thing for the country. It brings us one step closer to potentially
building a third party that represents the proletariat and petty bourgeois classes.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm finding it disturbing how many so called progressives
are convinced beyond any doubt, despite the evidence I produce to instill doubt, that Russia
interfered in "our democracy."
They have come unglued to the point of idiocy over Trump. They are firmly in the clutches
of the CIA Deep State apparatus.
"Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp
up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016
presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works
department in a 2010 DOJ report."
Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever.
Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has
become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has
become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha,
ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today.
@ Walter Devine: "Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can
get on their soap boxes and let loose."
But overlook that the Democrats and mainstream media are doing the opposite? It seems to
me that this is precisely the point that Mr. Parry's reporting has been aimed at, that the
Democrats and mainstream media are jumping enormously to RussiaGate conclusions without
disclosing any evidence to back up their incredibly dangerous claims and that there *is* very
strong evidence of ulterior motives.
Gregory Herr , December 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long
ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill
since.
Peter de Klerk , December 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm
I had great respect Parry's earlier writing which had a healthy dose of MSM skepticism
(albeit largely for personal reasons). This whole business of jumping to conclusions on the
Russia meddling has put me off him totally. All the reporting seems to be in service of
defending a forgone conclusion. I wonder if this has anything to do with fundraising.
This whole Russia ate my lunch has entered the realm of alternate truth. The MSM are now
actually stating that the Russian hacking the 2016 election as fact. Just like all the other
false and fabricated statements of world events in the last 20 years . Fro Yugoslavia,
Milosovic exonerated for the falsely laid charges of genocide . How convenient after his
death . Qadaffi murdering and slaughtering his own people hence RPL interventionist and voila
the highest standard of living in the African continent is now reduced to takfiri heaven for
the NATO proxy army recruiting centre. MH17 disaster is still being paroled as Russian
deliberate murder. No facts no evidence that would stand even in a Stalinist show trial.
Assad gassing his own people. More than debunked by multiple sources and US academics to boot
no still being paroled as fact by western MSM.
The whole charade post 9/11 has gone into this Orwellian nightmare that just keep on growing
and news and information has become pure Hollwoodian fantasy that the sheeple are sleep
walking into this futuristic hell hole that these vile masters of the universe will not be
able to back track without losing face and without causing the populace to stand up and be
counted and kick tjhese vile players out for good.
john wilson , December 14, 2017 at 6:00 am
Take heart Falcemartello, its not all bad. Over here in the Britain RT has its own free to
view TV channel which sits next to the BBC news and the parliament programme. It is now
widely watched by the public and has millions of viewers with many using RT as their main
news source. The fact that the American deep state criminals have made things difficult for
RT America in the US, is a clear indication that the fake news masters otherwise known as the
MSN, and their handlers in the deep state are rattled by the ever growing alternative voice.
Its up to you, me and the rest of the posters on CN to tell our friends colleagues and others
about CN, RT etc. If only one percent take a look then alternative opinion will start to
filter through and more importantly, show the public what liars and criminals are in charge
of their country.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the info John. I am really glad that at least Britain has a reasonable degree
of freedom of the press. If it spreads across Europe, the USA may eventually find itself so
isolated by its own propaganda that the whole evil empire scheme will implode, and we will
have to learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. That is my Christmas wish.
BobS , December 14, 2017 at 11:36 am
It's not difficult to get RT in the US- I watch it regularly on Dish Network. Youtube is
another option- I'm guessing it's big and rich enough to survive any changes in net
neutrality that will result from the Trump/Pai FCC (of course, Obama and Clinton were just as
bad, DEEP STATE!!!!, etc.).
If you're going to tout conspiracies, get your facts straight.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:48 pm
John Pilger has an article in counterpunch explaining the importance of documentaries (not
just his!). It is notable that his first one, on Cambodia, in 1970, was shown free to air on
TV in the UK and thirity other countries, with huge audience impact, but refused by PBS as
too disturbing!!
The free press in the USA is in tune with the ptb.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm
I see the Pilger article is here on consortiumnews. It is worth a read, like the rest
here!
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:58 pm
What you wrote john wilson is simply not the complete truth, although I wish it was. It is
true that RT UK has its own terrestrial digital TV channel. It appears that Margarita
Simonyan bid for such channel at an auction when Britain was converting from analogue to
digital TV and got it. Thus, the British TV viewers can now see RT without any subscription
or special equipment, "next to BBC" as you optimistically say.
What you did not mention john wilson is that the British Government regulator Ofcom is
putting severe pressure on RT because their news offered an alternative view to the British
propaganda. They rinse and repeat the same biased-news allegations almost every year, keeping
RT UK under constant threat of the loss of its broadcasting licence due to "breach of truth
standards" = "fake news". They even banned the lightbox, radio and other media advertising
campaign of RT in Britain, the so called "RT is the second opinion", only because the
campaign claimed that if RT existed before UK attack on Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair may have not
been successful in passing the war resolutions through the parliament.
What most people do not appreciate is that the methods of suppression are not the same in
all Western countries, and why should they be? Simonyan got a terrestrial TV channel and the
broadcasting licence because of the British propaganda hubris – the British still
believed that their post-imperial propaganda is the best in the World, just because it was
the best in the world during the empire. They simply never expected the Russians to be so
successful, just the same as US.
In summary:
US => force RT to register as a foreign agent to force reporting of every little detail of
its operations; refuse journalistic credentials to Congress etc to disadvantage its
reporting
UK => keep constant threat of the loss of broadcasting licence to skew the reporting
towards the British Government version of the news
I post the links relevant to what I wrote here separately to avoid being put on hold.
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's
interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't
that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of
FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital?
Just say'n.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on
fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers
and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on.
Spot on Bob, the unfortunate and idealistic Mr Seth Rich became the DNC's bottom line, the
shining example of its "anything goes as long as we have friends in the right places" (FBI,
DOJ, CIA, etc etc).
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 9:04 pm
Agreed. Let's not forget Process Server for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Shawn Lucas who died
mysteriously 2 weeks after serving the DNC either.
I never would have believed the rot in the Democratic Party establishment would rival the
Republicans, but here we are.
Anon , December 14, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Tina" is a troll assigned to CN to claim extremism, and never presents evidence or
argument.
Steven A , December 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm
This is another great review by Robert Parry. However, he again uses the formulation that
"WikiLeaks published" and "WikiLeaks released" purloined DNC emails on September 13, 2016.
Greenwald and the Washington Post have stated, more carefully, that WikiLeaks "promoted" the
data source of these emails by means of a Tweet on that date.
Adam Carter noted in a comment under Parry's previous article that the DNC emails in
question are the NGP/VAN files associated with Guccifer 2.0's pre-announced "hack" on July 5,
2016 and reportedly released by him on Sept 13, 2016.
In fact, they are certainly not part of WikiLeak's official archive. One can see from
their website that they published nothing between the times of the DNC emails release of July
22, 2016 and the Podesta emails release of October 7. So "published" is clearly the wrong
word.
Whether or in what sense it may fairly be stated that WikiLeaks "released", "promoted" or
"uploaded" (as according to the Erickson email, which probably represents nothing more than
an outsider's impression) the September 13 files needs to be cautiously assessed. Their Tweet
did include an access key, as did the Erickson email, and the address for the file given in
the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot
Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks.
Did Guccifer 2.0 himself upload the files to mega.nz? Did he play Kim Dot Com to use the
latter's association with Wikileaks to get Wikileaks itself to put out the Sept 13 Tweet
advertising the data release? I'm not sure how this all worked, but it seems that it is
misleading to simply refer to this set of emails as having been "published" by Wikileaks.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:12 am
Didn't you read the VIPS analyses of the DNC leaks?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:21 am
Yes, I did, but not while writing my comment above. Do they say anything relevant to the
question of whether it is accurate to correct the false media report that the Trump campaign
was given access to the NGP/VAN DNC emails before WikiLeaks published them with a "corrected"
statement that the Trump campaign was notified (but may never have noticed) of a link to
those files by a random member of the public _after WikiLeaks had already published them_? As
I recall, the original VIPS memo was itself somewhat confused about the distinction between
the NGP/VAN material and the five DNC documents made public by "Guccifer 2.0" on June 15,
2016, so I'm not sure one will find anything relevant to my question there.
While it is true that the "correction" here is _much_ closer to the truth than the
original misinformation, the underlined part at the end of my question still seems misleading
in that the "publication" is attributed to WikiLeaks without qualification. And it seems
Parry is not the only one to make this mistake. As Adam Carter pointed out two days ago, he
was very surprised that almost no one has been noticing that the files in question came from
"Guccifer 2.0" and not from WikiLeaks. While Parry's attribution misleading, I am still not
clear in my own mind about precisely what did happen, i.e. how WikiLeaks came to "promote"
the release of the files and whether in some loose or indirect sense WikiLeaks did "release"
them.
mike k , December 14, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is there really any other purpose in your involved questioning but seeking to cloud and
confuse the obvious issues in the "Russia hacked" affair?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 2:05 pm
How is it clouding the issue to suggest, as Adam Carter did, that one element in Parry's
(and others') description of the facts in an otherwise excellent article seems to be
misleading?
@ "the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that
this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with
WikiLeaks."
These are the sort of details I haven't been familiar with and about which I was hoping to
learn more – so thanks! I was relying on a vague impression from memory when I made the
link between the "mega.nz" address seen in the email from Erickson and Kim Dot Com.
Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks
as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then
being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"),
perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone
associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort.
Thus the statement that "WikiLeaks published" the files in question (repeated by Parry,
Justin Raimondo and others) appears to be false. I share the surprise expressed by Adam
Carter (under Parry's previous piece) that few appear to have noticed or bothered to correct
this error – even though they were on target in exposing the main part of the latest
MSM lie.
Those of us who live within the Outlaw US Empire have been seduced by lies Big and small
since we could understand language. RussiaGate is an example of a Big Lie, just as the Outlaw
US Empire being a democracy is a Big Lie–both are indoctrinational. Santa Claus, Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Sand Man, Cupid, et al are other excellent examples of
indoctrinational Big Lies. One of the most severe is the maxim delivered from parents: You
must share and play nice, when the real world acts in the exact opposite fashion. What's
more, RussiaGate serves as a cover-up for several major crimes–some by Clinton, some by
DNC, some by FBI, some by Justice Department, and some by CIA: None of them are being
actively investigated despite there being lots of evidence existing in the public domain,
which is why we know those crimes occurred.
"A Russian hacker accused of stealing from Russian banks reportedly confessed in court
that he hacked the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and stole Hillary Clinton's
emails under the direction of agents from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)"
PUTIN ORDERED THEFT OF CLINTON'S EMAILS FROM DNC, RUSSIAN HACKER CONFESSES
BY CRISTINA MAZA ON 12/12/17
in which she stated that not only did Putin 'annex Crimea' but also invaded Ukraine,
among other things. None of her statements were backed up by any facts, which
apparently are irrelevant anymore. Wikipedia has an interesting bio on her.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:57 am
Thank you irina for that "catch". I'm a long time reader of "The Atlantic Magazine" well
aware of its long, liberal history and was surprised to find David Frum reporting there.
David was a speech writer for W. Bush and apparently came up with the infamous "Axis of Evil"
tag for President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'll link the Wikipedia page below for
those interested. I'm concerned that propaganda has spread far and wide
Despite its extremely conclusive title and substance, the Newsweek article later admits
the extremely suspect nature of the accusation, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever:
"Andrei Soldatov an expert on Russian cybersecurity, said he believes Kozlovsky invented
the story about his direction from the FSB for personal gain. 'I've been communicating with
[Kozlovsky] for four months, and he has failed to give me any proof or answer my questions,"
Soldatov told Newsweek .'He was put in jail by these guys so it could be out of revenge, or
he wanted to make a deal with the FSB,'"
Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is
unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American
Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers
consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
Perhaps another quasi-religious CIA front like Fethullah Gulen's madrassas in Turkey and
across central Asia.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm
They keep publishing the same horseshit just like Pravda did in the Soviet era and just
like the Voelkischer Beobachter and Stuermer did during the Nazi era. I guess the uninformed
hoi polloi get so used to it in these situations that they accept the situation, like ducks
and frogs accept watery ponds as their environments.
Manfred Whimplebottem , December 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm
I think I heard a similar story from newsweek months ago, looks like someone took the
deal(?).
FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian
Hacker Claims
"On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an
infiltration of Democratic Party officials' emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the
request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried
to pin the email scandal on him."
"ikulin's lawyer, Martin Sadilek, [claims] that the FBI visited him at least a couple of
times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an
apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of
Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's emails in July."
"[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton's inbox for [U.S.
President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin]," Nikulin wrote"
At that time, it wasn't known why Mr. Strzok was transferred/whatever from
counter-intelligence, but since then it has been revealed that Mr. Mueller did so for his (
Strzok) political opinions. That would seem a fair thing to do. What's the problem? Might be
right-wing fear.
Marko , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 am
" What's the problem? "
C'mon , man. Given Strzok's position and his influence on Russiagate AND the earlier
Hillarygate investigations , the fact that he was transferred in July is of little comfort.
Any damage he could do he'd already done by then. Jim Jordan will explain it to you , in six minutes :
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm
The problem is that when that story first appeared, nothing else was disclosed. The
damning material took months to emerge, as did Strzok's links to the Clinton coverups and the
links to the fake dossier and the FBI's "anti-Trump" insurance policy. Those who want to
believe the regime's falsehoods can always come up with rationales such as "I guess the
government people know best" which was typical of the answers to sceptics against the Viet
Nam war in the mid '60s.
Realist , December 14, 2017 at 2:43 am
It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a
Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if
there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under
banner headlines long ago. Instead, we get nothing but one set of sensational fake headlines
unsupported by any actual facts time and again, all in an attempt to fool the
mentally-challenged public. Yet the NYT and the rest of the yellow press continue to insist
that the evidence continues to mount against Trump. What a laugh. Moreover, these deceivers
are the people that want what they define as "fake news" to be systematically rooted out and
stricken from the public record so no thinking person can ever see it. And, they tell us this
is a free and democratic country. Got any more jokes?
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:48 am
Totally agree. And it reminds me of some reality "quest" shows about finding Bigfoot or
the Oak Island treasure, etc.
If those were actually found, it would be reported a day or two later, unless every single
one of the producers, actors, workers, etc. were under an NDA enough to wait until some
season finale a year or two later. Ridiculous. If Bigfoot exists that will come to us on
news, and big news, international. It won't come on a 4th season of some Bigfoot-finding
show.
So yeah, season two of the Trump-Russia whatever.
Maddow/MSNBC and the likes have gone utterly insane. Bigfoot behind every door. Scant or
zero facts, who cares. This isn't like Benghazi or White Water or Bush's air service this is
24/7 inane terrible journalism from nearly every journalist publisher in the US.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:30 am
I think that the new evidence discussed provides Trump the cover to pull the plug on the
whole Mueller operation despite the Alabama debacle. Sure the media talkers would compare it
to the Saturday Night Massacre, but the proven falsity of the whole absurd circus renders
risible such comparisons. While I don't expect much out of Trump, the championing of this
absurd theory by the mainstream democrats renders them an existential threat to civilization
itself based on the fact that enmity with Russia seems to be their be-all and end-all. It is
all not only criminal but profoundly stupid.
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:40 am
"The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to
protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether
a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election
– a proposition that grows more plausible every day."
1. How is Russia an "adversary"? And even if Russia is, that's weasel-words and
subjective. Is Turkey a foreign adversary? Is Israel? China? Mexico?
2. Why wasn't there decades ago a special Election Panel looking into foreign influence? I
guess it just started to happen in this last election though .Only with Putin!
3. "more plausible" .this fucking idiot. After a year of headlines of "this is what will
finally take down Trump" and such, all with zero reasons, zero facts .Is naught more
plausible than naught?
4. I detest Trump. I more detest hypocrites and idiots.
But sure, "blah blah more possible take trump down" says some idiot or collective NYT
idiocy. Bore me more your next op-ed, you partisan morons.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, the NYT is mere propaganda. We already know that "a presidential campaign conspired
with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election" because Clinton's top ten donors
were all Zionists, and she supported all wars for Israel.
Rich Monahan , December 14, 2017 at 3:57 am
Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI
operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be
president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why
has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker?
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super
power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking
detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of
influence. That is unacceptable to the empire.
RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from
power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist,
but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and
cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I
suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate.
And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort.
M C Martin , December 14, 2017 at 6:08 am
Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's
needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney
says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict
the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating
back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we
now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK,
Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations?
While I can't endorse our government's illegal and immoral collection and storing of
virtually all communications among people, if the store is there and is used against petty
criminals, why couldn't or shouldn't it be used to detect and prove the illegal acts of our
government power brokers?
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Looks like pressure from the "intelligence community" was the decisive factor in appointment of the special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated. ..."
"... Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon. The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.? ..."
"... The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional. ..."
"... In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy. ..."
"... The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein -- could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation. ..."
"... turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external, more corrosive ways ..."
In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the
Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated.
You remember Rod Rosenstein. Way back on May 9, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was thrust from bureaucratic obscurity
when the White House cited his three-page memo as the basis for the firing of F.B.I. director James Comey.
Rosenstein, after a day or so, then receded from the headlines, thanks to the cyclonic chaos machine that is the Trump administration:
Oval Office leaks to the Russians! Israeli spies! Angry tweets! But the bespectacled, seemingly mild-mannered lawyer just got very
interesting again.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert
S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
It was a stunning reversal for Rosenstein, who for weeks had been fending off congressional calls for just such a move. It was
also -- if the details are true -- a stunning vote of no-confidence in President Donald Trump : Department of Justice sources say
the White House was given only 30-minutes notice before the public announcement, and that Rosenstein had already signed the order
at that point. It may also be a sign of Rosenstein's anger at being bullied by Trump last week -- when the White House, amid the
uproar over Comey's firing, tried to pin the blame on Rosenstein.
There were also pragmatic procedural reasons. "President Trump basically forced a special counsel to be appointed the minute he
made Rosenstein a witness to Comey's firing -- by saying that he'd accepted the recommendation of Rosenstein to fire Comey," says
Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor. "Trump disqualified Rosenstein as an impartial prosecutor and made this appointment all
but inevitable."
It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting
of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon.
The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in
the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016
probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.?
Rosenstein will also be grilled about the underlying mess: Was the president trying to slow down or scuttle the Russia inquiry
by firing the F.B.I. director? "We are very curious about that," a Senate source says.
The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years
as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein
stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President
George W. Bush nominated him to
be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous
regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional.
In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy.
"A lot of people, like me, who were really troubled by the Sessions appointment as attorney general thought Rod would be the person
who would stand up for D.O.J.'s independence in a pinch," says Matthew Miller, who was Attorney General Eric Holder's spokesman.
"And that did not prove to be the case last week. Rod wrote that memo, and it was a farce. It was a cover story so Trump could fire
Comey over the Russia investigation. That was the moment for Rod to stand up and say no, and not only did he not do that, he helped
load the gun for Trump."
The truth could be more complex, of course: Rosenstein may have genuinely believed Comey should be fired, and he also may have
been an unwitting tool for Trump and Sessions. Appointing a special counsel "is an admission by Rosenstein that he messed up badly
last week," Miller says. "He still needs to explain himself to Congress."
Attorneys on both sides of the political aisle who know Rosenstein don't question his impartiality when it comes to evaluating
facts and legal issues. They wonder, however, whether Rosenstein has been out of his political depth as deputy attorney general --
and whether he wrote the Comey memo without sufficient concern as to how it might be used. "The skills needed to be an effective
U.S. attorney are significantly different from the ones needed as deputy attorney general," one D.O.J. veteran says. "Being a straight
shooter is great, but you have a lot of other considerations in those top leadership positions."
Even with Mueller now overseeing the Russia investigation, Rosenstein's impact should be felt on two other crucial fronts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with
Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to
drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein --
could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation.
Then there's the larger, murkier subject of leaks. After Trump apparently blabbed confidential, Israeli-developed intelligence
about the fight against ISIS to the Russians, conservative media outlets have been loudly calling for whoever tipped reporters to
the story be hunted down. As Maryland U.S. attorney, Rosenstein's highest-profile case was the prosecution of James "Hoss" Cartwright,
a retired four-star Marine general and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was accused of disclosing
information about covert anti-Iranian operations to reporters; he was charged with lying about his conversations to F.B.I. investigators.
Rosenstein extracted a guilty plea from Cartwright and pushed for a two-year jail term.
Trump apparently told Comey he wanted reporters who'd received leaks locked up. And now the White House and Sessions are prioritizing
the pursuit of leakers. "It's almost as if people think they have a right to violate the law, and this has got to end, and probably
it will take some convictions to put an end to it," Sessions told Bill O'Reilly on Fox in March. Rosenstein, who is in charge of
the Justice Department's day-to-day operations, may be the one tasked with implementing a crackdown.
But the Trump-inflicted turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external,
more corrosive ways. "What happened with the president and the Russians the other day makes counterterrorism work even more difficult,"
says Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who pursued the 9/11 attackers and now runs an international security firm.
"Early on, the
Israeli intelligence and military establishment warned the government about sharing intelligence with the White House for fear that
Trump would share it with the Russians, and that the Russians will share it with the Iranians. And then we've proved them right.
What I hear from people around the world, and from people who work for the U.S. overseas, is that the situation is chaotic. It's
becoming increasingly difficult for people in nati
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "special prosecutor" over the past week, I would have enough money to qualify
for a
cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Various Democratic
senators have been calling
for a special prosecutor whenever they can get close enough to a microphone. Last week, a number of state attorneys general
wrote
a joint letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein urging him to appoint an independent special prosecutor. The New York
Times Editorial Board
joined
the chorus a few days ago.
The idea of appointing a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation is not new. In March, a public opinion
poll suggested
that two-thirds of Americans supported the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was before Comey was fired, and before the
competing excuses for firing him that came from the White House and President Trump himself.
A few months ago, I
predicted that Trump might fire Comey. (I'm not happy I was right, and the writing on the wall was clear enough for anyone who
cared to look.) I thought back then that the only way to move forward with a credible investigation into Russia's involvement with
the last election would be to appoint a special counsel. What was a good idea then is a necessity now. It's not just because Trump
pulled the trigger on firing Comey. Although it's unusual, it's not illegal for a President
to fire an FBI Director. A President
can hire and fire executive branch officials as he sees fit. Read More
close dialog
close dialog And that's the problem. Trump can remove anyone and everyone holding a top position at
the Justice Department who may be involved in this investigation. Clearly, he's not been shy about sacking Justice Department officials.
Just ask Sally Yates
and Preet Bahrara , or the other 46 US Attorneys who were told to vacate their offices before sundown earlier this year. Views
on Comey's firing
Let's imagine for a minute that the people in charge decided that appointing a special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
This is how it would work . The attorney general (or the deputy attorney general in a case like this one, where the attorney
general recuses himself) has the discretion to appoint a "special counsel" when: (1) a criminal investigation is warranted; (2) there
is a potential conflict of interest if the Justice Department conducted the investigation, or there are "extraordinary circumstances"
present; and (3) it would be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. The decision by the deputy attorney general to
appoint (or not appoint) a special counsel is not be reviewable.
Although political and public pressure can certainly influence the decision, it's entirely up to Rosenstein to do it or not. I
know that, according to sources cited by CNN,
Rosenstein doesn't
see the need for a special counsel at this point. He's wrong. It doesn't really matter if there is nothing to the allegations
of Russia's meddling in the election or collusion with the Trump team. At this point, there is so much distrust and skepticism about
the process itself that there needs to be an independent prosecutor looking into these allegations just to assure the country that
the President and his associates did not commit a crime. Rosenstein shouldn't get any friction from his boss.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly
recused himself from any investigation dealing with Russian meddling, and Sessions
had no problem with the
idea of a special prosecutor when the potential target was Hillary Clinton. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments against
the appointment of a special counsel. The process can be expensive, lack clear direction, last for a year or more, and is not guaranteed
to reach any meaningful conclusions. But the benefits of appointing a special counsel in this case greatly outweigh the potential
downsides. Although no one has asked me (and no one probably will), I know just the person for the job: Larry Thompson, a former
deputy attorney general and former US attorney in Republican administrations.
He has extensive private sector experience, and is currently trusted by a federal court to oversee Volkswagen's compliance with
criminal sanctions related to its emissions scandal. He is a loyal Republican and
a supporter of Sessions , so the GOP couldn't credibly claim he's politically biased. More importantly, he's well-respected,
extremely competent, and experienced in complex criminal investigations.
Whether it's Larry Thompson or someone else, a special prosecutor should be appointed to take over this investigation. If Rosenstein
is the man everyone
says he is ,
I believe he will appoint a qualified, independent prosecutor to take over this mess of an investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, the ball
is in your court. Don't let America down.
"... At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel, saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance. ..."
"... Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney, he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater. ..."
"... Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas. ..."
Atty. Gen.
Jeff Sessions
recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after news reports revealed he had failed to tell his
Senate
confirmation hearing about his meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor who had been serving as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, was confirmed as the No. 2 by the Senate
the following month.
That put him in charge of the investigation into whether current or former aides to
President Trump
coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
What is Rosenstein's role in the Russia probe?
It will fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to file criminal charges against any of Trump's aides, to drop the case entirely
or to hand it off to an independent prosecutor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel,
saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance.
But he said he had "no reason to doubt" the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian authorities sought to influence
the presidential race. He also said he believed the
Justice
Department could handle the most politically complicated cases without fear of compromise.
Rosenstein laid out the case for Comey to be removed in a three-page memo that the White House released Tuesday.
In firing Comey, Trump had said he acted on Rosenstein's recommendation.
In a memorandum to Sessions, Rosenstein harshly criticized Comey for actions going back to last July, when he held a news conference
to announce that the FBI would not seek charges against presidential candidate and former Secretary of State
Hillary
Clinton in the email investigation but denounced her conduct.
That was a serious misjudgment, Rosenstein wrote, adding, "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our
thoughts at a press conference."
He went on to say that Comey had made the problems worse with his decision to disclose in late October -- 11 days before the election
-- that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton after finding State Department emails on a computer belonging to former
Rep.
Anthony
Weiner , the estranged husband of Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
.
Reports have since come out that Rosenstein threatened to resign over the way the Comey dismissal was attributed in part to the
memo.
As Sessions' top deputy, Rosenstein is responsible for using Justice Department resources to step up enforcement of immigration
laws, a Trump administration priority.
Sessions already has instructed all U.S. attorney's offices to be more aggressive about filing criminal charges against people
who cross the border illegally, and he has threatened to cut off department grants to so-called sanctuary cities unless they cooperate
with immigration agents.
[Sessions] picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how cases are decided, and should be decided.
-- Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general from 1994-1997
How did he become deputy attorney general?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Rosenstein, 52, won unusual bipartisan support on the strength of his crime-fighting efforts as the U.S. attorney for Maryland
for the last 12 years. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general by a vote of 94 to 6.
Where did he get his start?
Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney,
he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution.
He first was nominated to the post by President George W. Bush. President Obama kept him on after the Senate did not move on Bush's
previous nomination of Rosenstein for a seat on a federal appeals court.
In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their
investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.
Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others
were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas.
Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 under the Clinton administration, praised Rosenstein at
a recent ethics conference.
She said the department would remain in experienced hands. Sessions "picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how
cases are decided, and should be decided," she said.
That's what Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" is about. He is not a New Dealer.
Notable quotes:
"... He forgot them on health care. Jettisoning his campaign pledge to "take care of everybody" regardless of income, he proposed cutting federal health subsidies for the hard-pressed blue-collar voters who put him into office. ..."
"... He forgot them on financial regulation. Abandoning talk of cracking down on Wall Street executives who "rigged" the economy to hobble the working class, he seeks to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ..."
"... And he forgot them on taxes. Discarding his vow to reshape taxation for average families at the expense of rich people like himself, he's working with Republican leaders to hand the biggest benefits to corporations and the wealthy ..."
"... The president hasn't forgotten everything. In lieu of big financial benefits, Trump has steadily given "the forgotten people" at least one visceral commodity [: ] affirmation of shared racial grievances. ..."
"... But on economic issues he has behaved exactly like a standard issue country club republican. The requirement that the GOP enact a "replacement" for Obamacare? Gone. Preventing the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? Gone. Enacting at least something like a tariff at the borders? Gone. Actually *doing* something about the opioid crisis, which is strongly correlated with areas of economic distress (as opposed to lip service)? Nothing. ..."
He forgot them on health care. Jettisoning his campaign pledge to "take care of everybody" regardless of income, he proposed
cutting federal health subsidies for the hard-pressed blue-collar voters who put him into office.
He forgot them on financial regulation. Abandoning talk of cracking down on Wall Street executives who "rigged" the economy
to hobble the working class, he seeks to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And he forgot them on taxes. Discarding his vow to reshape taxation for average families at the expense of rich people like
himself, he's working with Republican leaders to hand the biggest benefits to corporations and the wealthy.
To the contrary, his budget includes big cuts to Social Security disability program. Meanwhile his much-vaunted infrastructure
plan has 'failed to materialize."
But, Harwood points out:
The president hasn't forgotten everything. In lieu of big financial benefits, Trump has steadily given "the forgotten people"
at least one visceral commodity [: ] affirmation of shared racial grievances.
I think this is a good summary of Trump's domestic policies as revealed by the past year. On social issues, he has governed exactly
as he promised during his campaign, issuing a de facto ban on Muslim immigration, unleashing ICE against Latinos, and fulminating
against protesting black NFL players.
But on economic issues he has behaved exactly like a standard issue country club republican. The requirement that the GOP enact
a "replacement" for Obamacare? Gone. Preventing the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? Gone. Enacting at least something like a tariff
at the borders? Gone. Actually *doing* something about the opioid crisis, which is strongly correlated with areas of economic distress
(as opposed to lip service)? Nothing.
Joel , December 7, 2017 9:03 am
Forgotten? LOL! No, Trump didn't forget. He was lying.
little john , December 7, 2017 4:01 pm
I hate doing this because I am not a fan of the President but a "de facto ban on Muslim immigration"? I cannot remember but
I don't think Indonesia, Pakistan, India or Turkey was on the list. Those a pretty big Muslim nations. Maybe you should look it
up. "Unleashing ICE against Latinos"? I have three Latino neighbors on my street, my next door neighbor doesn't even speak English,
but I haven't seen any ICE agents around. Maybe I should just wait they're on their way? "Fulminating against NFL players"? You're
right about that.
As an aside I have recently had to laugh when I see your pseudonym. Here in Dallas we've taken down the statue of Robert E.
Lee from Robert E. Lee Park. (Now named Oak Lawn Park.) At the opening of the park in 1936 there is a great picture of the statue
with FDR, Robert E Lee IV and D.W. Griffith. I am wondering if NewDealDemocrat is a microaggression?
run75441 , December 8, 2017 9:35 am
NDD:
Before you bemoan the loss of the CSR (covered by Section 1402 of the ACA) for those making between 138 and 250% FPL, you do
understand premium subsidies will pick up the difference. If the states apply the premium increase properly to the Silver plans,
the impact is felt across all other levels between 138% and 400% FPL. Indeed, in many cases Bronze plans are free, Gold plans
become less costly, and premiums decrease. A person can go to a lower deductible/copay for the same or less cost than the original
silver plan.
I think as some will tell you here, this does nothing for those greater than 400% FPL who now find themselves being hit with
the full impact of a premium increase due to Trump's action. While a much smaller percentage of the insured, it still numbers
around 9 million.
spencer , December 8, 2017 1:45 pm
Isn't that 8 million being hit out of the under 20 million that had signed up for Obamacare.
So on a percent basis doesn't you quote imply about half of the relevant population is being hit?
Special prosecutor was appointed. But not the one that Ben Domenech expected. Still a very
interesting detail is this article is that Comey seems to be very well informed about this
mechanism and used it himself. So "special prosecutor gambit" was played by an experienced chess
player with full support from intelligence agencies and within certain circle of high level
officials within FBI and Justice department.
Notable quotes:
"... This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey, the current director of the FBI. ..."
We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. The current system that is so
obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot. With the race for the Democratic
nomination effectively concluded, Hillary Clinton now awaits the endorsement of President Obama , which they expect to come
within the next few weeks. Obama is poised to play
a big role in Clinton's campaign against Donald Trump, acting as an emissary to groups and
audiences that have been more reluctant to support Clinton in the past. But this creates its
own set of problems: namely, that the FBI under the auspices of Obama's administration is also
actively investigating Clinton's email server and her mishandling of classified
information.
It's hard to see any way that a conclusion reached under people like Loretta Lynch, serving
at the pleasure of a president advocating vociferously for Clinton's election, would be seen as
treating the candidate fairly. Even if Clinton is cleared, a dark cloud will hang over the
process. And Clinton herself should not be comfortable with the prospect of a process Trump
will certainly denounce as crooked, especially considering that many Americans would likely
agree with him.
Rather than deal with the typical rhetorical battles over this issue that have played out on
cable television over the past year, Republicans in Washington should cite historical precedent
in this context. Back in 2003, when a top presidential appointee was suspected of mishandling
classified information, that president's attorney general recused himself from the matter. A
special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations and determine if prosecution
was warranted. That prosecutor investigated the case, brought charges, and obtained a
conviction.
This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House
official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a
jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey,
the current director of the FBI.
John Aschroft, the attorney general under George W. Bush, had the good sense to recuse
himself from the matter and appoint Comey to make the decision about how the case ought to
proceed. Ashcroft knew his own involvement would only taint whatever decision was finally made.
So he removed entirely the possibility of political interference by recusing himself. As a
Senator, Barack Obama hailed the verdict in that
case and the process that led to it.
Republicans ought to demand that Loretta Lynch do the same thing Obama's current FBI
director did when he worked at the Department of Justice in 2003: appoint a special
prosecutor.
If Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong, if no laws were broken, no classified information was
mishandled, and no American men and women were put at risk as a result of her actions, then she
has nothing to fear from an independent investigation of her activities. Where she stands right
now is the worst of all worlds: she could still be prosecuted by FBI/DOJ, but if she's not,
everyone will assume that political interference saved her. She can never get out from under
that cloud, no matter what happens.
An independent prosecutor, however, can put all of that to rest. If he or she finds evidence
of any crimes, then the case will be prosecuted. And if the prosecutor decides not to charge,
we'll know that it wasn't a political decision.
This is actually the best of all worlds for Hillary, because it actually gives her the
opportunity to clear her name, if she's innocent. It also happens to be the best solution for
the American public. We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. We deserve a
law enforcement system that actually enforces the law. A special prosecutor can deliver it. The
current system that is so obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot.
Ben Domenech is the publisher
of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington
told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions,
except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is
run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April,
she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.
Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy.
For instance, The Huffington Post published my
piece on Nov. 5,
2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the
campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to
blame Russia for her defeat.
On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another
piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive."
I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed
anyway."
After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed
23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media
for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the
writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored
my email asking why it was taken down.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that
would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that
Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level
intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which
may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary
sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with
Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by
his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard
Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as
part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.
The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was
hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump
Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the
GOP nomination.
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
FBI-SIS Comey the leaker and the Agents that play the game. The DNC Russia dossier is the
ball that Comey pushed down the hill. Swamp needs to be drained.
So it is the fault of the president that the FBI reputation is in tatters . NO. It is the
fault of the FBI. Here in Europe we are laughing at the FBI and their reputation. Drain your
swamp which includes the FBI and CIA
I realized the FBI is corrupt when Comey testified before Congress. It is time to put all
FBI employees to be given lie detector tests. DITTO the CIA, NSA and all US intelligence
agencies. It might not be a bad idea to do the same for Pentagon and White House employees.
Extreme, maybe, but something isn't Kosher here.
Politics has truly become a children's game. Both sides are playing extremely biased
opposing enemy positions. Both sides scream nonsense at one another, neither side will
listen, and talking is out of the question. Both sides are shooting, but nobody gets shot.
Everybody is playing, but nobody is doing anything. Everybody has been caught out, but they
all keep playing. This is the never ending game with no rules except "hate Russia" that we
call "hate Russia." What do we need to do...ring the dinner bell? Come on Trump, you've won,
put them all in jail, and let's have pizza! Merry Christmas!
this government has gone way beyond investigations, it is infested with ...globalist
cockroaches and needs an exterminator. we need a military take down of this government with
Trump in command to deal with the infestation. with a take over they could then look at
everyone in government and bring charges for their attempted coups and subversion of our duly
elected president not to mention all the criminal deals and actions that made them millions,
then can charge and punish them as their charges imply ... this is serious, the government is
FUBAR...semper-fi..
Someone needs to get their hand on all the documents and other materials Obama had taken
out of the White House before he even left office. It was done under the guise that these
documents were for his Library and were going to be stored until the "library was built. This
is unprecedented and requires further journalistic scrutiny!
I would like to ask Tom Fuentes, (who is a regular on CNN), what are his thoughts about
COINTELPRO? What about Mark Felt during Nixon? After all, he claims that the FBI was squeaky
clean up to Comey. He's a lying douche bag.
"... He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home. ..."
"... First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night party. ..."
"... Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email. ..."
"... Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the Mueller investigation shut down, told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club." ..."
"... Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president. ..."
One of special counsel Robert Mueller's top investigators has come under fire from
conservatives.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, one of the team's most prominent members, sent an
email to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates praising her for not defending the Trump
administration's travel ban.
He also reportedly attended 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's
election-night party.
The investigator dubbed as special counsel Robert Mueller's "pit bull" by The New
York Times has come under fire for perceived bias against President Donald Trump.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly in attendance at former Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits
Center in New York City,
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The revelation came days after the conservative
group,
Judicial Watch , published an email he sent to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates
praising her for refusing to defend Trump's controversial travel ban in January.
"If it's true that Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary's victory party, this is getting out of
hand," tweeted Ari Fleischer , who
served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush.
Weissmann is one of
the most prominent investigators on Mueller's team.
Considered to be an expert on flipping "defendants into collaborators -- with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective," as The Times wrote in
October, Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull with two
Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies
that includes professional killers and white-collar criminals."
The prosecutor made a name for himself in high-profile cases involving New York's mob bosses
and at the turn of the century in the Enron scandal. He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid
in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home.
"If there's something to find, he'll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann
in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there's
nothing there, he's not going to cook something up."
Weissmann comes under fire
But following the revelation that one top investigator on Mueller's team, Peter Strzok, had
been reassigned from the special counsel's team after he apparently sent anti-Trump text
messages during the 2016 election, Republicans began taking aim at Weissmann as the latest
example of an investigator biased against the president.
First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so
proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon
followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night
party.
In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, during which FBI Director Christopher
Wray was testifying, Republican Rep. Steve Chabot called "the depths of this anti-Trump bias
on" the special counsel's team "absolutely shocking."
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch,
asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably
compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email.
"Shut it down," he said.
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the
Mueller investigation shut down,
told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club."
Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and
individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come
with the probe reaching closer to the president.
Already, Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two of the most
prominent members of Trump's campaign, have been charged as part of the Russia investigation.
Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, was also charged, as was early Trump campaign foreign-policy
adviser George Papadopoulos.
Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 counts including money laundering and conspiracy
against the US, and Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1 to one count of making false statements
to investigators about his contacts with Russians. Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty in July to
lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia-linked individuals.
"I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow louder and more brazen as the special
counsel does his work, and the walls close in around the president, and evidence of his
obstruction and other misdeeds becomes more apparent," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York,
recently promoted to ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said during Thursday's
hearing.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
Why do these guys continue to pretend that Rod Rosenstein is ever going to oppose anything
involving Mueller or Comey, and why hasn't anyone removed that little criminal McCabe
yet?
No one is talking about the Regional offices of the FBI. I would imagine, 40-60 percent of
ALL adult Americans, after watching James Comey lay out the crimes of Hillary Clinton, then
say "OH, but we're not prosecuting her, because she didn't mean to do it". That is when
Americans said "WTF!". Every Criminal says they didn't mean to do it. Think about it, next
time you get ticketed for speeding, make sure to tell the Judge, there was no specific intent
to speed, therefore you can't prosecute. Not only the above, but now you have Michael Flynn
being bankrupted, and he pleads guilty because he ran out of money, and his family couldn't
take it anymore. That's now a win in this country. Pleads to a lie during an ambush interview
by an obviously bias'd white Knight FBI agent Peter Stroke. While Huma Abedin and Shirley
Mills get immunity deals...
LT. GEN. Flynn has his life ruined for being politically ambushed by the FBI and caught in
a LIE. HILLARY lies to Congress, The FBI, The American People and is out signing books. A 5'
7" pile of dung!! Memo to President Trump.....Pardon GENERAL FLYNN.
There never was Russian collusion on the trump side, now we know the corruption of the FBI
with the Obama and Clinton cabal. It's time to execute a lawful end to this mess. These
people all thought Hillary was in and really messed up in trying to cover their tracks. It is
all going to come out now. Some of these people will get executed and rightfully so.
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
Being totally controlled by intelligence agencies is probably the wildest nightmare now...
And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond such a nightmare.
Any JFK files still classified have been totally scrubbed by this point. Anything damaging
was likely destroyed long ago. Anything left is there for a purpose.
As such they they likely contain more disinformation than information at this point and
it'll be hard to tell the difference between the two.
They all had their little so-called "Democratic Club" under Obama where they all thought
that'd prepare the way for more of their corrupt agenda by putting Hillary into Office. They
know now that all the activities like RussiaPhobia, rigging of the Democratic National
Committee, etc. were all part of the plot. Just remember that Obama was highly skilled in the
totally corrupted politics of Chicago and The State of Illinois that he helped to bancrupt.
He did a good job at the same thing in Washington D.C., brought in with the help of the CIA
(who he used to work for in Chicago) and run the deficit to levels every politician agreed to
where deficits don't matter, we can print as much as we want mentality. This is why you see
China, Russia and many other countries now looking at the warmongering corruption in
Washington D.C. and saying that federal politicians if you give them enough time will implode
the U.S. from within if you give them enough rope. Now you see the current CIA Director
meeting with James Rickards because he understands that economic implosion will hit their
agenda.
Boy are you right. A Republican run Congress and Senate in 2015 when the book, _Clinton
Cash_ made the best seller list. Apparently none of them read it and just now are getting
around to looking what has to be one of the largest criminal rackets ever run within that
City.
"as the Trump investigators -- in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in
the media -- begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge" "America is in
a radical state of flux, or rather in a great accounting and recalibration, ranging from
government to popular culture. Hollywood lived a lie and now is not what it was just three
weeks ago. The NFL was based on known but ignored hypocrisies and is no longer the league it
was in September. The media has put rank partisanship before truth and lost ideologically and
morally. And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond our wildest nightmares.
"
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics
professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who has lied, leaked and who wrote the Hillary report weeks
before any key players, including Hillary, were interviewed, wants us to know the FBI is
"honest", "strong", and "independent". The man who leaked and connived to get a special
prosecutor wants to convince us of that.
Jim Comey is the one who had no problem with Andrew McCabe's conflicts of interest. He is
the one who disgraced his own agency. He is the one who obstructed justice by declaring Hillary
Clinton innocent which he is not permitted to do in his role. The former director is the one
who lamented not being a "stronger" man.
Comey is sanctimonious, arrogant, supercilious, and narcissistic and he's not an agent, he's
a lawyer.
... ... ...
Does anyone doubt that Mueller, who has hired Hillary donors and activist
Democrats to investigate Trump, knew about Strzok's leanings? A top spy and he didn't know?
They are simply trying to silence us with their usual diversions. Don't fall for it. We
don't have to be blindly obedient to these people.
Pete Strzok is the agent who caught Flynn lying. Set up?
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naďve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
Could someone help me understand what is so "populist" about this presidency?
After the Senate passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich (which Trump himself stands
to benefit from handsomely), Trump went off to a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser at hedge fund
manager Steve Schwartzman's Manhattan apartment. Is that populist?
Trump appointed a telecom lobbyist to head the FCC and he has proceeded to give AT&T,
Verizon and Comcast their wish list. Is that populist?
He's nominated a pharmaceutical lobbyist to head Health & Human Services. Is that
populist?
Nothing populist has come out of this presidency. He has done everything any other
Republican would do, only with a big helping of racism and bigotry piled on top.
If he's doing what he said he would do on trade, then why is NAFTA still around? Also,
remember the 35% border adjustment tax he said he was going to slap on foreign goods? He
dropped that the same week that he tweeted about transgender people in the military (probably
to hide that he wasn't going though with the former). About the only thing you can claim is
that he dropped us out of the TPP, which was always going to be a long shot anyway because of
the number of nations involved.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his
father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus
on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed
HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000
for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);
he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important
and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.
The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential
in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty
common for people in his field and position.
I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot
on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him.
As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings.
Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish
?)
Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working
"in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved
in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent
to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years
after retiring? It's just force of habit.
I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would
have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI
office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server
file in light of this.
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous
- how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?
"... False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia ..."
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement
with special prosecutor Robert Mueller was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn had admitted to
killing Kennedy or had unprotected sex with Vladimir Putin. But once I took time to read the
actual agreement I realized, not surprisingly, the the media lynch mob was blinded by hatred
and unwilling to think objectively or fairly about the matter. The evidence exonerates Donald
Trump of having colluded with the Russians but does expose Michael Flynn as a man of terrible
judgment when it comes to talking to the FBI. There was nothing that Flynn did with the
Russians that was wrong or improper.
Here are the key details for you to judge for yourself:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the
defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and
accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the
charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the
defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor
for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of
President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National
Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an
interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington,
D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of
Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the
nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether
there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.
2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the
FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals
associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election.
False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain
from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
"... An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them. ..."
"... This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a federal official -- even when one is not under oath. ..."
"... He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd. Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks, all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money. Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal functioning of US government ..."
"... A weird country, the USA. Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused. ..."
"... Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate. ..."
"... That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint. ..."
"... Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys". ..."
Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn's sin was lying
to liars , not colluding with Russians.
When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump's 2016 election,
former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to
the electorate.
In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the
United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn's deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that
Obama's expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at " boxing Trump in
diplomatically, " making it impossible for the president to "improve relations with
Russia," a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to
lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.
To defuse President Obama's spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot
of which was that Russia "retaliated" by inviting US diplomats and their families to the
Kremlin for a New Year's bash.
A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn't you say?
Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Kushner likely
instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite
pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by
Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.
One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's violations, here, is that
Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect's promised foreign
policy -- diplomacy with Russia -- is not illegal.
Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government's KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.
The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell
to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated "criminal"
label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?
Nowhere.
By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common
criminals.
An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a
crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of
creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare
them.
Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned -- not for the offense of insider trading, but for
lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so
scared of conviction -- wouldn't you? -- that she fibbed. The
lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See "Insider
Trading Or Information Socialism?" )
This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in
Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of
Title 18,
in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a
federal official -- even when one is not under oath.
It's perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into
fibbing. By such tactics, The State has created a category of crime from which a select few are
exempt.
Is this equality under the law or inequality under the law?
Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.
Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract
a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported
to have threatened Mike Flynn junior with a legal kneecapping.
Ultimately, The State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and
power of an accused. The power differential between The State and an accused means he or she,
as the compromised party, will cop a plea. The Flynn
guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal which subverts the
very goal of justice: the search for truth.
In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor,
Flynn's punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced. President Trump's former national
security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught.
Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.
He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks,
all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money.
Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal
functioning of US government.
I fully concur with the commentary. Once the Martha Stewart case went forward and this "law"
was not challenged, my view, at that time and since, was that the yankee imperium had entered
the post-rule of law era. This is amply shown by the use this "law" has been put to. In the
end, it was creeping extra-legal fascism that destroyed the rule of law in the US, not
creeping socialism as was feared by certain elements in the '60s. The existence and
enforcement of this provision is an affront to basic decency and the rule of law, and the
legitimacy of any state which upholds such an extra-legal provision is non-existent.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks
Even if this is the case, why should this be a big deal? It's hardly a secret that US
politicians take bribes, ahem I meant political donations, from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China
and probably many others. Before one takes this farce of selectively law enforcement
seriously there needs to be a massive cleanup of root and branch of the entire US regime
before any of this can be seen as legitimate.
Was this Ilana's piece? I could have sworn I was reading Alan Dershowitz. Which is not a good
thing. Many observers feel Zionist Alan has gone round-the-bend in his analysis.
Anyone feeling sorry for the wayward General is wasting their psychic energy. First he's
got exposure in several areas. Second, it's likely he made a great deal with Mueller. Third,
he'll probably get a pardon soon (he's a great guy you know).
So the nonsense falls on deaf ears. Flynn didn't have to lie. He did it for a specific
reason which we don't know yet. And he didn't have to deal. He could have depended on Trump
whilst not rating-out his colleagues (like Manafort). Flynn as his lawyer made
clear , "has a story to tell" because he's guilty.
So when Flynn was texting during Trump's inaugural address he was probably just tying up
lose ends in various deals, all of which were legit (sure)? Like a potential kidnapping for
his client Turkey? Maybe the FBI was complicit in compelling him to do that too. We shall
see?
A weird country, the USA.
Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other
country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical
industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held
in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused.
Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When
he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming
Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate.
Flynn broke no laws establishing relations with Russia for the incoming president. But when
he started lobbying UN members on behalf of Israel, that's when he crossed the legal
line.
He's lucky he only got charged with lying.
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting endless
wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel commit crimes
against humanity in Palestine.
I am no fan of American criminal law or its enforcement. They hardly seem to be the kind of
adjunct to the "demovracy" the US seeks to export that it will find helpful in the sales
pitch. However I am amazed that sophisticated people questioned by the FBI don't use an
equivalent to the Fifth Amendment by saying "I don't intend to lie to you but refuse to
answer any of your questions unless I am immune to prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18
[maybe adding 'except for denying an act which is itself a crime that I have been told is
being investigated']".
By the way is it entirely clear that the Logan Act didn't make what Flynn was doing
criminal, ridiculous though that would be?
I agree with much else you are saying here (though from memory, Martha Stewart's behaviour
was clearly white-collar criminal, on top of the lie, unlike Flynn's stupid and inoccuous lie
or simple misinterpretation).
ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite pastimes:
passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements.
That is wrong on so many levels.
i. Your bare-faced lie of saying 'Security Council' instead of 'General Assembly', when
you are knowing very well that the U.S.A. is *always* vetoing anything critical of Israel in
the SC, sole exception being when former Pres. Hopey-Changey Hussein was ordering an
abstention on one late in his second term. One of his very few good acts as Pres.
ii. The implicit assumption that Israeli settlements are a good thing. I am sure that you
would enjoying it if you were to live somewhere where maniacal strangers who hate you were
trying to occupying all high positions, wandering about with automatic and semi-automatic
rifles, destroying or seizing your neighbour's (and your) houses, destroying olive groves,
and monopolising the water supply, etc.
Palestine used to have a proportionally large Christian population. In the early stages of
their departure, Israeli jews were the main driver.
Disingenuous or what?
iii. Why should the main emphasis of any contact with Russia be illegal (under
international law) jewish settlements! You cannot even say Israeli, because it is outside the
borders of Israel.
That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing
Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint.
Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in
the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of
war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys".
The frantic tone of the article shows just how much damage Flynn's testimony has done to
Trump. What Flynn tells us is that the initiative to contact the Russians came from Trump,
not the Russians. That's absolutely damning for Trump. The evidence previously available
suggested that the initiative had come from the Russians, pointing towards the possibility
that the rather naive Trump team had been more or les set up by the Russians. Now we know
that Trump solicited Russian intervention, which tends to prove that he is indeed Putin's
stooge or, even worse, the stooge of the gangsters behind Putin. That may well be the deep,
dark secret that Trump was afraid Putin would tell. The onus is now on Trump to prove that he
isn't an agent of a foreign power and the only way he can do that is to get Putin out of
Ukraine.
It's actually beyond weird; it's absolutely mind boggling. Utterly twisted. Everything of
value has been twisted and perverted beyond anyone's imagination. One huge plastic garbage
dump.
It's a huge corrupt cesspool, yet most people here see nothing but El Dorado and think
it's the Savior of the World all rolled into one.
Trump as prez narrowly beating Hillary in a scam democracy-esque "election" and congress
bowing and scraping to Netanyahu pretty much sums it all up perfectly.
The place is as full of morons as ignorant as they are arrogant, just like the goofy
looking, sounding and acting clowns who rule them. It's utterly beyond redemption.
On another note, can you comment on and/or suggest some good sources for studying the
bankers of Amsterdam of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Dutch West India Co??
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting
endless wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel
commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Yup. A nation of Zio-bankster cucks and that includes the vast majority of Jews as well as
goyim.
Many warned us of it when they opposed the Federal Reserve and when the Zio-Bolshie
banksters suckered the US into WW 1 & 2 on their behalf, but we never even know their
names today, and we have next to nobody telling the truth today.
continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
And elsewhere. Wherever the banksters demand control, which is nearly everywhere.
Those damned cagaderos have turned the whole planet into one big one!!
What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ?
As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO should leave there.
We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking.
We want normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has
disappeared because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard
MH17.
My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on the
day after the disaster objections had vanished.
So it was very lucky for those who wanted to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol
Amsterdam was hit.
Despite that Russia just has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the
continuing investigation, that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to
continue stating vague accusations against Putin.
Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.
To Mercer,
Great great article. You've created a description of events that is so absorbing and brings
up such deep anger in the reader towards the increasingly exposed psychopathic and psychotic,
that we are collectively inspired to end the influence of these creeps. Thank You!
Flynn is DIA. He's an actor in this psyop. It's not the crime that counts, it's making a
crime understandable by the audience.
Consider that Petraeus fornicated with one of his gun runners. Oh the crime! The US
Treasury is an open vault to these elite assassins – there's no law here, but that's
not a problem as far as the public will ever know. Neither is the carnage, which is all
carefully hidden from view. Deliberately destroying civilian populations is never made
obvious.
Occassionally, the FBI and the press will shame one of the royals in a carefully crafted
stage production (or tennis match) as competition naturally heats up amongst members of the
owner-ruler class. Press mockingbirds will disagree back and forth with one another only
adding necessary fuel to the drama.
The "crime" is usually an overwrought, completely specious claim of dishonesty and
sometimes a bedroom indiscretion to titillate American prurience. Taken very seriously by at
least part of the press, but ridiculed by another. The leading figure nevertheless emerges
tarnished. The CIA's Andrea Mitchell will shed a tear on NBC (as she did for hero mass
murderer Petraeus). This is an instruction for a simple minded population, including any
number of rote evangelicals.
Now Flynn's resume includes a prominent role in the post 9/11 war of terror. An
environment that doesn't have anything to do with the American sheep's warped delusions of
what the law even means. However, enourmous efforts are always made to indemnify criminal
violence through legal mechanism.
The guilded cage for American mafia member Flynn meant he killed as many people as
possible in the two major strategic theaters, started his own privateering operation once
some of the shooting quieted down, looted and cashed in as a international contractor into
imaginable wealth and is now playin himself in his own wrist slappin' psyop.
What's next is predictable. Go on to Wall Street to join an investment firm, accept
academic honors, visiting professorships, write a book and maybe even join a "peace" movement
to reduce violence – writing an op-ed for Tom's Dispatch. God speed Ó
Floinn!
This doesn't impede the normal function of Government, whatever the fuck that is. Bread
and circuses are what the Government delivers daily in darkness. Look at it this way, this
investigation is a new product off the assembly line. It's not production in a simple sense,
but the externalities are large enough that crisis and drama are a tenuous key to economic
growth.
Think of the noise as a large ignot being forged in a factory filed with fire and noise.
The end product is probably something you don't really need, so the need is created. It's
Friday, let's see what the press sluice gate intends to drown your mind with next. Here we
all are – tapping away at our keyboards and iphones in a factory with no pay. You could
say we're volunteers for the Government, something it needs to function normally.
Via Wilkipedia, coup deata is an "illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to
unseat the sitting executive."[1]
... In looser usage, as in "intelligence coup" or "boardroom coup", the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit, Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring, there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself. ..."
"... Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky. ..."
"... "Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor now at Duke Law School. ..."
"... The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell, it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox. ..."
"... Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's word would be enough at this point. ..."
"... Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor. ..."
"... Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing will continue to hobble the Trump administration. ..."
"... Larry Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC. ..."
"... This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. ..."
"... After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime. ..."
"... This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy. ..."
"... It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call. ..."
"... I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo ..."
"... His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks. ..."
"... Mueller was a liar from the very beginning.Mueller lies to congress, commits perjury; Weapons of Mass Destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF6WpWAxy8 ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it. ..."
"... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what their agents say you said. ..."
Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president
himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit,
Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal
by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring,
there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself.
By securing a guilty plea from Flynn, Mueller has effectively bought his team precious time to uncover the "smoking gun" that
has eluded them thus far. Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is insurance against a presidential firing. At this stage, firing Mueller
would lend credence to Democrats' accusations that the president obstructed justice when he asked former FBI Director James Comey
to go easy on Flynn. Of course, Trump didn't do himself any favors when he tweeted that Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence and the FBI (though Trump lawyer John Dowd later copped to writing the tweet, it certainly didn't help Trump's case for
firing Mueller).
Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests
that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky.
As Mueller's probe has gotten closer to Trump's inner orbit, speculation has risen over whether Trump might find a way to shut
it down. The Flynn deal may make that harder. For one thing, it shows that Mueller is making progress.
"Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending
off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal
prosecutor now at Duke Law School.
The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional
crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell,
it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's
attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Furthermore, as one legal expert told Bloomberg, it's difficult to see how Flynn's testimony will be enough to incriminate another
member of Trump's inner circle. While Flynn's many alleged misdeeds have been chronicled in the press (most notoriously his alleged
plan to kidnap Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen), given what's been reported so far, it's hard to see how Flynn's prosecution ties
in to some broader narrative.
Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's
word would be enough at this point.
Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other
high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better
witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor.
Some experts believe that Mueller's probe is now almost certain to reach a step beyond that. "Before this is wrapped up, Mueller's
going to request an interview with the president, and he may even request it under oath," says Amy Sabrin, a Washington lawyer who
worked for Bill Clinton on the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. "And then what is Trump going to do?"
Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats
who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. At the same time, it will allow Mueller and his team of hopelessly compromised Hillary
Clinton supporters to fend off their critics, who've recently been emboldened by reports that
Peter Strzok , an FBI agent who played an important role in the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation - and who
also helped supervise the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information – expressed anti-Trump
sentiments in a series of text messages to his colleague/mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing
will continue to hobble the Trump administration.
Why are they looking for a fucking smoking gun, when there is no motive? What is the motive, illegal improved relations with
Russia? Isn't that a Presidents job to use his mandate to change course?
Gimme some public hangings, come on, everyone wants it.
Mueller is the running man in this little episode in history. He's the cowboy in the trail swishing the branches across the
tracks, and then stomping down false trails before cutting off sharply into the woods.
As old as he is, he only needs to keep running a few more years at most so that he can die free and not in prison.
I was going to say the same thing. I read the bloomberg article (linked on Drudge) like 20min ago...Tyler used the same pics
as well. Is this what "Journalism" has come to? C'mon Tyler! don't get sloppy here.
mueller, comey, holder, clinton crime syndicate is a round robin circle jerk that has been operating since Arkansas days.
Larry
Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire
justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC.
This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. He rightly compares this to the plot to
kill hitler which failed. The plotters were sure they had succeeded until they were lined up against the wall and shot.
After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon
and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable
loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime.
What they don't understand is that Trump may become even more dangerous to them if he is no longer in office. A Trump-Bannon
media machine could do a lot of damage with nothing to restrain it. Look for Muller to tie Bannon into all of this, because Bannon
now has a national platform and is too dangerous left on his own to say and do whatever he wants.
Apparently Mueller and the douche bag who wrote this article are the only people in the world who still believe this is a viable
investigation. Mueller has zero chance of convicting anyone after what has been revealed about his investigators as well as his
personal involvement in Uranium One. Not to mention, btw, that he is required by law to recuse himself because of his close relationship
to one of the key witnesses/actors in this investigation, Comey. It's not even up for debate, it's mandatory and with that being
written quite clearly, Mueller still didn't do it. Now it is revealed that Mueller sat with Trump in a job interview for acting
head of the FBI while knowing he could very possibly (and was) be selected as a special prosecutor for an investigation into Trump/Russia
collusion and he never told Trump. Apparently this is also an act requiring recusal.
Mueller will be lucky to not be sitting in jail after this fiasco. He's crooked as hell and his cover has been blown. Just
a matter of time at this point as we are witnessing almost daily revelations of misconduct by his investigators as well as other
high level FBI/DOJ officials.
This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year
with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials
were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.
Yeah. It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good
witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call.
I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo , but
a cold hard analysis of fact will show that it is a case no prosecutor would ever take to court.
That's the exact thing the puzzles me. Watching details unfold. They screwed him. Set him up on this specific one. Why plead
guilty? Flynn doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't know what he's doing.
His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most
likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting
that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks.
Flynn's only criminal act was a misstatement. That is what they would have called it if Hillary had been caught up in the sting.
This is the best they have been able to produce after this tedious attempt to construct a criminal plot that would take down Trump.
What they have managed to do is focus a national spot light onto their own misdeeds. The middle management of the FBI better start
looking after their own interest. The Agency has a litany of misdeeds in its dossier. If it plans on surviving the ongoing fire
storm, those infected members within the Agency must be triaged.
Maybe Mueller will not survive, if compromising leaks start leaking. One email or conversation between Strzok, Comey and Hillary/Lynch
how to exonerate Hillary and to eavesdrop Trump and bring down Trump or people around him and Mueller is finished.
I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save
him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it.
Oh wait, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lied
but they didn't admit it. I wonder if that's because the person that interviewed them was a biased Hillary supporter????
Trump as Chief Executive needs require the FBI to record all interviews with witnesses and suspects.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-reverses-longstanding-interview... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any
witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what
their agents say you said.
"... "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," ..."
"... "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser." ..."
"... The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] . ..."
"... The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans. ..."
Reading the mainstream media headlines relating to the flipping of former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn to provide evidence relating to the allegations about Russian
interference in America's last presidential election requires the suspension of one's cognitive
processes. Ignoring completely what had actually occurred, the "Russian story" with its subset
of "getting Trump" was on display all through the weekend, both in the print and on the live
media.
Flynn's guilty plea is laconic, merely admitting that he had lied to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian
Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, but there is considerable back story that
emerged after the plea became public.
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind
the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place
more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am
increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out
interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.
Based on the information revealed regarding the two conversations, and, unlike the highly
nuance-sensitive editors working for the mainstream media, this is the headline that I would
have written for a featured article based on what I consider to be important: "Israel
Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," with a possible
subheading "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser."
The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the
direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United
Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in
years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner,
acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the
Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call
to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution
2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .
The second phone call, made by Flynn on December 29 th from a beach in the
Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, may have been ordered by Trump himself. It was a
response to an Obama move to expel Russian diplomats and close two Embassy buildings over
allegations of Moscow's interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn asked the Russians not to
reciprocate, making the point that there would be a new administration in place in three weeks
and the relationship between the two countries might change for the better. Kislyak apparently
convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go tit-for-tat.
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong. It would not be
inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team. Apart from holding
off on retaliatory sanctions, Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly
responsive to Team Trump overtures. If it was an attempt to interfere in American politics, it
certainly was low-keyed, and one might well describe it positively as a willingness to give the
new Trump Administration a chance to improve relations.
The first phone call about Israel was not as benign as the second one about sanctions.
Son-in-law Jared Kushner is Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Netanyahu said that he would do so and Trump even responded
with a tweet of his own expressing disagreement with the Obama decision to abstain on the vote,
but the White House knew that the comment would be coming and there was no indication from the
president-elect that he was actively trying to derail or undo it.
Kushner, however, goes far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he
was trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government
agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way. He is currently working on a
new peace plan for the Middle East which starts out with permanently demilitarizing the
Palestinians. It will no doubt continue in the tradition of former plans which aggrandized
Jewish power while stiffing the Arabs. And not to worry about the team that will be allegedly
representing American interests. It is already being reported that
they consist of "good, observant Jews" and will not be a problem, even though Israeli-American
mega-fundraiser Haim Saban apparently described
them on Sunday as "With all due respect, it's a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea
about anything."
What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser
to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American
government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite
equate to the Constitution's definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy,
but it most certainly would be covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens
from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be
construed as a "conspiracy against the United States" that the Mueller investigation has
exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly
could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , this part of the story obviously makes
many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it is being ignored and expunged
from the record as quickly as possible. And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything
about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full
well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will
turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel,
here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one
reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be
deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask
Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the
second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed
Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N.
resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'"
Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the
piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha.
For me, there was also a second take-away from the Flynn story apart from the collusion with
Israel. It involves the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to set-up Flynn shortly
after he had been installed as National Security Adviser. Insofar as I can determine, the FBI
entrapment of Flynn has only been
examined in a serious way in the media by Robert Parry at Consortium News.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed by the FBI regarding his two phone conversations on
January 24 th shortly after assumed office as National Security Adviser. During his
interview, he was not made aware that the Bureau already had recordings and transcripts of his
phone conversations, so, in a manner of speaking, he was being set-up to fail. Mis-remembering,
forgetting or attempting to avoid implication of others in the administration would inevitably
all be plausibly construed as lying since the FBI knew exactly what was said.
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets, but the
logic used to set-up the possible Flynn entrapment by the FBI, i.e. that there was unauthorized
contact with a foreign official, is in itself curious as Flynn was a private citizen at the
time and such contact is not in itself illegal. And it also opens the door to the Bureau's
investigating other individuals who have committed no crime but who find that they cannot
recall details of phone calls they were parties to that were being recorded by the government
six months or a year before. That can easily be construed as "lying" or "perjury" with
consequences that include possible prison time.
So there are two observations one might make about the Flynn saga as it currently stands.
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one.
And second, record all your phone conversations with foreign government officials. The NSA and
FBI will have a copy in any event, but you might want to retain your own records to make sure
their transcript is accurate.
Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the
Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a
more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and
email address is [email protected] .
How is it that the FBI interrogates an agent of the President Elect on secret negotiations
conducted on behalf of the President Elect?
And isn't that agent of the President Elect obliged, as a matter of national security, to
conceal the details of those secret negotiations from anyone who attempts to extract them
from him, lying as necessary to do so?
And anyhow, what was the point? Why the interrogation? The negotiations were made over the
telephone, so the US Government, and presumably, therefore, the FBI, could obtain a
transcript if they needed to know what was said.
The whole story seems nonsensical. But if anyone comes out of this looking good, maybe it
will be Flynn. while it is the FBI and Robert Mueller who get their come uppance.
Nothing new, but a very clear summary of the situation, as one would expect from Mr Giraldi
– including the customary warping of reality by the TPTB (substitution of "Israel" with
"Russia").
Perhaps, the article is too tepid only on the legal entrapment combined with NSA recording
of communications. Who says that this will be applied only to conversations with foreign
nationals? I am sure that other statutes exist or will be quickly created to entrap anyone
who does not remember word-for-word what was said in his communications with anyone else:
thus lying to the Police etc. This is a magnificent self-awarded gift to the US regime which
will only keep giving. I am waiting for the vassals to follow closely behind – the
five-eyes and EU countries to develop similar entrapment resources.
What is the point of recording someone's communications if you cannot also put him in
jail at will?
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel
than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line. Or, if he is really angry, he could send a few Mossad agents to have a talk with the
Jewish reporters about how they're hurting Israel, and if that happens, then too bad because
the Mossad will have to do something about them.
Anyway, it looks like Mueller's investigation will halt at Flynn. If Mueller tries to go
farther, something 'interesting' may happen to him. If he does, I expect to see a full
smackdown of his investigation from every direction with accusations against his honesty and
probity, followed by his firing once enough public rage has been ginned up against him so
that all liberal protests in his favor are drowned out by the fury of the lynch mob.
Phil, this makes me feel even worse than I did before. I knew that RussiaGate was nonsense
from the Hillary camp, however, the fact that Trump would bring his son-in-law into the WH
and allow him to collude with Israel against the national interests of this country, fills me
with dismay.
While I supported Trump mostly as an anti-Hillary stance and not because I saw him as
someone who would bring about great positive change to our country (e.g. draining the swamp),
I had hoped that his pandering to Israel during the election campaign was mostly political
SOP. Since last November, however, he has gradually lost me. I am happy that he has not
started new wars, but with the accelerated donkey-felating of Israel, I am not confident that
we won't soon embark on more wars for Israel and more funds to that shitty country from our
taxes.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed because he was stupid enough to talk to
the police. Never talk to the police. Don't believe me, this is a detective who says
don't talk to the police:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed
by the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Of course, nowadays if you assert your 5th Amendment right to not talk, street cops will
construe that as mental illness, so it's acceptable to do as Kenny Suitter does. Remind them
verbally that you're not talking to them by saying: "I don't answer questions."
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches.
I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.
Checkpoint: I REMAIN SILENT-NO SEARCHES-I WANT MY LAWYER
Bravo to Phil Giraldi for calling out and writing about these treasonous bastards. Thanks to
Unz for giving him the platform. Keep reporting and hopefully there will be enough people
that will stand up and prevent this tyranny from developing further.
The Russian collusion story will flower eventually. I feel certain of that. But really, who
among us did not feel that Kushner would be doing Israel's bidding, from back as far as the
spring of 2016? Who thought that 'One President at a time' would apply to Jarad and the
administration elect?
It has never been made clear why Flynn was the man as far as Jarad and Ivanka were
concerned? Was it merely because they viewed him as a dupe for their plans?
Was Obama setting up the new administration with someone he knew was already criminally
exposed–Flynn–and was the almost certain hire –because of Kushner– as
well as because of the current president's strong objections?
Yes it seems like the term "duel loyalty" was almost made for Kushner. With Jarad's title
of Ambassador without portfolio Israel didn't even have to effort a move of the US embassy to
Jerusalem –it was a given– and as far as permission to attack Iran? I'm afraid
that seems in the cards as well.
If Israel isn't mentioned–by US Media– it should be. While all calls are not
recorded by NSA it is likely that those countries with the greatest presence in spy assets
within the US (Rus/Isl) undoubtedly are. Yes Flynn lied to the FBI. I don't think there's
much question Kushner will too.
I suppose here we have an important cause of Russiagate, Israel sees that Syria is not
destabilised, just physically destroyed, thanks to Russian interference.
USA support is the only reason Israel still exists, good relations between USA and Russia may
mean the end of Israel, in any case the end of Israeli power in the ME.
And if USA support ends, what about German support ?
Will Israel get another two billion submarine, for which the German taxpayer pays some 400
million ?
At the same time, I fear we see that no anti missile system is capable of destroying many
missiles if they come at the same time.
When, I hope never, Russia fires most of its 1600 old fashioned ballistic missiles at the
USA, some will het through, I suppose.
Well I said if Mueller wants to make himself useful he could take down Kushner. Be
interesting to see if we get any follow up on him, or if it quietly dies in the dark as you
surmise, these things always seem to once they have the potential to impact negatively on
Zionist interests. Will that kill the whole investigation, it certainly seems to be coming to
a dead end anyway?
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to
inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should
surprise no one.
Well, it certainly doesn't surprise me and I'm (happily) a nobody. Anyway, at least the
Ziocreeps are consistent.
Looks like Oncle Joey was right again.
"Blame others for your own sins."
J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 -- January, 1907
Why does "Israel" seem to be at, or very near, the center of most major issues of the day
once the curtain is lifted a bit, and why are they nearly always suspected of doing something
unjust and shady if not downright criminal?
And what about the eternal victim image we dumb goyim are supposed to imbibe with our
mammy's milk?
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more
concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment
and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.
The FBI went into that interview with the plan to get Flynn. He never had a chance. Even
if he had a transcript of his phone conversations, and provided answers from that, they
would've manipulated him into a BS process crime.
I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he
worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say. If you're a target of the FBI it makes no
difference how honest you are and how precise and accurate your answers are to their
questions.
Apart from all that, I trust people with last name Kushner over people with the last name
of Mueller or Strzok
Smoke screen! The spooks are more spooked than ever! What exactly did the US intelligence
services get up to that they're now so scared of Russiagate? Mr Giraldi is in such a panic
that he totally fails to make the point in the title. He essentially admits Russian
interference but does not establish, nor even, in fact, claim, that there is any connection
between Israel and Russian interference. Israel has no need to engage in undercover
interference to influence US politics. It does so quite openly and has the Israel Lobby to
support it. It certainly has no need of Russian help! One might also ask what disadvantage
there would have been for Israel if Hillary was elected. Why would they feel the need to
manipulate the election in Trump's favour? Thus, it's not an "either or" situation, as Mr
Giraldi tries to present it. Regardless of whether or not there was also Israeli
interference, Russian interference, with the help of American "associates", is well
established and confirmed by an almost identical pattern of interference in the French
presidential election. More interestingly, though, what has emerged from Flynn's testimony so
far is that the initiative came from the Trump campaign, not the Russians. The evidence
available up to that point suggested that the Russians had taken the initiative and more or
less set up the naïve "bunch of Orthodox Jews". It's little wonder therefore that both
Putin's American supporters and Trump's personal lawyer are running around in panic!
Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal,
And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As
an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen
currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees
against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
Mueller was head of the FBI during the 9/11 "investigation"
you don't get anymore 'swamp creature' than that
more here:
Trump succeeded in convincing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to order his UN
delegation to delay the vote. Egypt then withdrew its sponsorship of 2334. However, four
members of the Security Council -- Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela –
counteracted Sisi's abandonment and brought the resolution to a Council vote. It passed and
was enacted due to the American abstention. It is quite certain that the Obama
administration sought the assistance of its intelligence and military ally, New Zealand, in
bolstering Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela against furious backroom opposition from Israel
and the Trump transition team. Trump and Kushner decided that just prior to Flynn's
indictment, they would demonstrate their fealty to Israel by announcing that the United
States was going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such actions, far from showing "collusion" with a foreign
power, point to conflicted loyalty, at the very least.
Netanyahu told New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully that New Zealand's support
for the resolution would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Israel,
when I read the above quote, it seemed too explosive not to have a link, so I 'Binged'
it
Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN
resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be
viewed as a "declaration of war".
There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from
Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US
Espionage Act .
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets,
if he was talking money from Turkey, to represent their interests- while masquerading as
our National Security Advisor, then I wouldn't mind seeing him hanged by the neck until it
snapped or until he stopped dancing.
but then that's how I feel about all acts of treason against my nation, and the
scum who serve the interests of our deadliest enemy at the direct expense of this nation they
swore a sacred oath to.
I wonder how clean the Democrats' hands are, vis-a-vis the Logan Act? Has every incoming
Democrat administration really been so squeaky clean in its dealings with foreign
agents?
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre
behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both
took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans
involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will
grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else
to go.
IANAL; does the old "fruit of the poison tree" apply to investigations/prosecutions as a
whole, or just to evidence found/used therein? Because the fact that one of the interviewers,
(((Strzok))) (caveat: (((echoes))) based on personal Jewdar only (facial phrenology, name,
occupation, politics, corruption); was unable to confirm via Gewgle) has been ejected from
Mueller's team seems germane. Maybe he'll only impact the trial, the way Fuhrman impacted
OJ's trial?
It's interesting how central the Logan Act has been in all this, considering how it's
never been used to prosecute anyone in its over 217 years of existence. The Jews and their
lackeys are now reduced to using blue Laws; to return to the "mobs Jews stirred up that
turned on them" motif, what if we started prosecuting Jews with blue laws against, say,
sodomy?
The NYT has a new piece up, titled "Why the Trump Team should fear the Logan Act."
Why the Trump team should fear the Swamp's use of blue laws? Because the Swamp is totally
corrupt and they hate Trump, that's why.
The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a
number of conservative political groups in that country.
It would be interesting to know more about that; how much more worthy do the Kushners
regard Israel as being of Conservative advocacy, compared to their ostensible homeland, the
United States? Because they seem to be fairly leftist in their desires for the latter.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli
government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way.
How Jews see themselves is very often a study in rationalization and self-deception;
eminently worthy of study, but never to be taken at face value.
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more
pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Trump may be marginally more pro-Zionist than the communist (AKA leftist) establishment,
but it's not really possible for Trump to be "a lot more pro-Israel"; there isn't enough
daylight available – the communists are too pro-Zionist for that.
And I doubt that margin is really worth the trouble; the Diaspora Wing of the Tribe hates
Hates HATES Trump and wants him gone Gone GONE. It's harder to do business with the Swamp
when it's mobilized to destroy the current administration; being seen as too cozy with the
object of their hatred is counter-productive.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line.
The money flow is very much in the opposite direction; from the Jewish diaspora to Israel,
not the other way around.
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No
searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA.
Mostly.
It's also a good idea to keep asking cops if you can leave. They often have to wait on K-9
units, for which demand outstrips supply. And they have regulations as to how long they're
allowed to keep you waiting before they conduct their search, and crucially don't have to
volunteer the fact that they have limits on how long they're allowed to make you wait .
But they do have to tell you if you're free to leave, if you're free to leave. So ask them
every 5 minutes or so, "may I leave now?"
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much
more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the
Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so
fucking Orwellian.
The upper ranks seem to be thick with Jews, too. Which should surprise no one who knows
even a bit about Soviet history.
"I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when
he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say."
Double Fake News Story.
You, as well as Girabaldi, really need to become educated as far as the Mueller
investigation is concerned.
Who within the Administration allowed Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24,
2017?
It seems Flynn was intentionally set up by disloyal legal and other advisers on
Trump's team, obviously to drive a wedge into the incoming administration.
No lawyer worth his salt would allow such an interview to proceed without serious
preparation and safeguards. Having just assumed office, the White House had legitimate
reasons to slow-walk any FBI requests. In particular, Team Trump should and could have waited
until the FBI was cleansed of the worst hold-overs and swamp creatures (such as Deputy AG
Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller).
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege. Of course, the MSM were out to get Trump
from the outset, and no doubt coordinated their story with Comey and Mueller.
Buchanan's latest article, Is Flynn's Defection a Death Blow? , asks Why Why Why
did Flynn lie to the FBI.
He committed the Martha Stewart offense. An ankle monitor is not that big a deal; Martha's
still baking cupcakes in recycled soda cans and selling overpriced stuff.
So maybe Flynn is actually a patriot, and fell on a rubber sword on purpose, in order to
expose the Israel connection that he perceived as getting out of hand??
Nothing new. Israel was meddling in the US political system even before it was created. But
the deep state will summarily reject the truth and keep pushing its fairy tale about "evil
Russia": after all, Israel is not a suitable bogeyman to justify totally insane "defense"
budget, which now exceeds the sum total of defense budgets of the rest of the world. Russia,
like the USSR before it, is used to justify shameless feeding frenzy of Pentagon contractors.
They are destroying the US more effectively than any enemy could, but their greed blinds them
to the fact.
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers? For example,
to demonstrate, in due course, that he was compelled to lie to protect national security from
a lawless and out of control FBI.
The former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry:
"When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear
annihilation] During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the
dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the
former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us
this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we're
recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we're rebuilding the nuclear
dangers. We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of
the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there's very
real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/former-us-defense-secretary-explains-why-nuclear-holocaust-now-likely
Paul Craig Roberts (the former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic
Policy): https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/05/walking-into-armageddon/
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers
of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. The real reason
that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the
Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a "willful decision" that went against his
recommendation . In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an
independently formed organization but a tool of US policy. Private interests and agendas have
control over the US government. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest
groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money
that elects politiicans get the laws that they want."
"Panic." Yes – the panic is palpable in the Israelis'/Lobby' words and deeds in
relation to Syria's sovereignty. The ziocon's mad irritation with the end of slaughter in
Syria deprives them of reason. Thence the visceral, irrational, overwhelming hatred of
Russians by the moral midgets that profess "Israel first." The supremacist fools would
initiate a nuclear conflict to prevail in a fight with their Arab cousins. Could not you just
leave the western civilization alone?
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime
war-mongers of the 21st century" – so true! We are witnessing the end of your
profitable "eternal victimhood."
And look where Kushner's "competence" has taken the investigation into Russiagate .
Amazing, indeed.
Also, what could be more valuable for Israel (the only theocratic apartheid "democracy" in
the Middle East) than the sweet and devoted friendship with the so upright and moral Saudis!
And none other than the aspiring Jared has procured this special friendship. Jared is really
good at clearing the fog of Israeli "democratic" morals.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers?
Not impossible but this sounds like too much 4D chess. Also, the public exposure of Flynn
is immediate and harmful, whereas any gain against the Deep State is deferred and
speculative.
Let's imagine this story if it happened in a different country:
An opposition leader wins a close election after a government uses all its power and media
control to elect a selected successor. During the transition, the state police investigates
the members of the incoming administration and puts them under surveillance. Street mobs that
support the previous government are unleashed on the streets to intimidate the elected
president and his supporters. After the opposition is sworn in, the old-regime loyalists
immediately start investigating them and threaten them with removal from office.
Media who supported the previous administration goes on a hysterical witch-hunt. A special
committee is formed to investigate the incoming president and any people connected to him.
Eventually people are charged with talking to ' foreigners ' and ' lying '
about it when interrogated by the state police. The losing candidate openly disparages the
legitimacy of the elected president. Media cheers it on and constantly predicts how very soon
the interloper who somehow managed to win the elections will be removed.
If this happened in a different country, Washington would now be talking sanctions or
worse.
Kennedy was the only president to go after Israel and the Jews US Fifth Column.
In addition to demanding Israel open their nuke facilities for inspection his adm and AG
supported the 1963 Fulbright Senate hearings on the ZOA and its Jews in the US. The ZOA then
became AIPAC under Johnson.
That's why they killed him.
DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent
"Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our
efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
"
Documents
In the early 1960′s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's
dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds were channeled via the quasi
governmental Jewish Agency's New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the
American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings
documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the
record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its
major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the
"Kenen Committee," called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late
1960′s. The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of
Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.
John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General
Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department
of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J.
Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy " we are soliciting next week the
registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act You
may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various
Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of
America."
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting
with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to
AZC. " in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the
discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the
Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may
require registration.'"
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney
General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order. "I doubt very much
there will be any fuss. I don't think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do
so the Council has compromised its position." OK'd by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA " receipt of such funds from the American
Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign
principal the Council's registration is requested."
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ "The request for registration
contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must
be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you be good
enough to grant us a delay of 120 days "
01/02/1963
Archive Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in
Washington, DC
01/24/1963
DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind
" he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the
receipt of any additional funds Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of
the 'activities' on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register "
01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – "AZC Gives
Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration"
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes
"Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the
course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it
was of the opinion it should not be required to register ."
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed "discontinuance of
receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of
its obligation to register."
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter. "The American Zionist Council
(coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by
the Justice Department to register as a 'foreign agent' of the State of Israel."
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent
order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel "Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist
Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law
rejected. " if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the
Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated."
As far as tech goes Google (Brin at least) and Facebook were significantly Jewish at
starting; Amazon is heavily reliant on investment capital and probably a significant portion
of the early developers were Jewish; they were well represented in the 90s tech scene. Also
the relationship between computing and finance, plus the emigration of Soviet Jews, was
probably a factor.
Honestly, impeachment would be a good thing, because it would throw the US into such chaos
that it might be less able to wreak death and destruction around the world.
It also would finally lift the scales off the Trumpees eyes and make it clear that the whole
thing is rotten to the core.
This site is full of Jewish conspiracy theorists. I am not one of them. The only Jewish
"conspiracy" that I have ever been able to detect is that they "conspire" to be successful.
As opposed to the rest of us, I guess – who conspire to be failures in life. Jews are
opportunists, they take advantage of the rules that the stupid gentiles make. And good on
them, they have shown remarkable skills doing that.
In the middle ages when the only way to be rich was to own a land, European countries
forbade the Jews from owning land. Then when the center of economic activity switched to the
cities – guess who was the best positioned to take full advantage of the situation
– the Jews. They became merchants, lawyers, bankers and so on.
I guess the stupid Europeans should have foreseen this development and as soon as the
cities became centers of wealth and economic activity – they should have gone Pol Pot
on the Jews – banish them to the countryside to do some farming there. So stop bitching
about the current situation in the US, it's not fault of the Jews, they are just taking
advantage of the stupidity of the US gentile elites.
Too many commenters cloud the issue by equating every Jew with a Zionist. This is just as
wrong as counting every German as a Nazi. Many Jews are appalled by the aggressiveness of
Israel and apartheid it practices.
Agreed. The Lib-Dems and their corpo/media/Follywood allies are attempting to destroy the
legitimacy of an elected president by means of fake news, fake indignation and fake charges
of treason.
But Trump surely has deep state allies as well as opponents, and thus will have been aware
before the inauguration of what he could expect, and would therefore likely have set traps
for the opposition.
The fact that the Mueller probe is losing all credibility suggests that the opposition may
yet come off worse than the President.
I suggest everyone who is fed up with Trump's Israel First betrayal of the US let him
know .
Is Trump an Israel Firster, or simply a friend of Israel. Trump ran a nationalistic
election campaign and appears to be following through on his commitment to restoring the
border, restricting Muslim immigration, etc. Such policies are exactly in line with those of
Israel. So why would Trump not be pro-Israel? And in fact, the stronger Israel becomes, the
less the US need aid Israel or tolerate American Israeli firsters.
The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America.
Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or
does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a
flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan
Americans.
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
Narcissist or not, early Trump interviews and views ( such as available on YouTube ) does
suggest that he has certain political talent and sound judgment about certain events like Iraq
war, 9/11 and dangers the US faces with foreign policy dominated by neocons. It's very strange
how his presidency turned out.
Notable quotes:
"... But more relevant to the discussion at hand would be the threat of Carthage while the Republic still existed. There were Senators who recognized that peace in the Mediterranean region was better served by having a competing power to balance the Roman presence. They argued passionately and rationally against wiping out Carthage, but were shouted down by the greedy hawks and others who couldn't stand having their supremacy challenged. ..."
It's pretty easy to see Trump as Nero – a wealthy, crass narcissist who really
wanted to be an actor. There's also the theory that Nero was specifically chosen over
Brittanicus in order to discredit the throne and break the Julio-Claudian dynasty, a
desperate last hope for the Republicans who had been losing ground steadily since Caesar.
But more relevant to the discussion at hand would be the threat of Carthage while the
Republic still existed. There were Senators who recognized that peace in the Mediterranean
region was better served by having a competing power to balance the Roman presence. They
argued passionately and rationally against wiping out Carthage, but were shouted down by the
greedy hawks and others who couldn't stand having their supremacy challenged.
Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies
that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread
benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the
current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The
American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in
history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor
"investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to
destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is
anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if
there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So
where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated
while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is
Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous
evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true
charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility
toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a
threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of
normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it
requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the
answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the
Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's
government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to
overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have
Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United
States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges
against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress
harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview
become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active
measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the
uranium sale was real.
Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists
been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question
inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over
and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is
driven into the public's head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his
"compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had
to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had
watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to
withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to
have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government
officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife,
was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the
"terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the
political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American
superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why
was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no
media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was
on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.
Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why
would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost
his movement by claiming credit? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it
is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and
the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has
removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are
led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
The idea is to create the crime -- if they pressure Trump long enough, then
Trump may well make a mistake such as lying. Or they can dig out something really embarrassing. As the scope is deliberately very
open and the pretext is fake, this is essentially Lavrentiy Beria method: shown me the man and I will find a crime
Notable quotes:
"... They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there would
be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts. ..."
"... The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed
by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources. ..."
"... But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about
his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research. ..."
"... But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate
their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't cooperate in contempt.
..."
"... No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey's
wiretaps. ..."
"... And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front of a
Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on the airport tarmac.
..."
"... If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And if
she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right. And if
she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer could be
questioned under similar terms. ..."
"... Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ? ..."
"... Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing, crippling,
and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play. Not, as in the case
of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and all to serve their own ends,
and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes. ..."
"... Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear
deal. ..."
"... In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that. ..."
"... I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed
dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders
deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating
the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files. ..."
"... I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition. ..."
"... Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above all
else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair shake instead
of the train ride he's on. ..."
"... With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies? ..."
"... According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. ..."
"... on't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence of
our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and that overt.
Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other countries' elections.
..."
"... The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason to
imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication. ..."
"... This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned when
they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not. ..."
"... This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact, law
enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After that farce,
Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax. ..."
"... Mueller will get some scalps. Guaranteed. ..."
It appears to me that the current dream/hope in the "resistance" is that Mueller will fish around enough to come up with "evidence"
that DJT and some of the people in his campaign and administration have been witting or unwitting cultivated assets of the Russian
state for some years. I do not really understand how that would be crime under US law unless espionage against US official secrets
were involved but the political effect would be ruinous. pl
Personally, I think this investigation is patterned after the independent prosecutor's investigation of Bill Clinton. Bill was
brought down by a dalliance with an intern. If they pressure Trump long enough then Trump may well make a mistake such as lying.
Or they can use their investigative powers to find something embarrassing (they get to question everyone they want under oath
and those questioned have to answer the questions). Otherwise the investigation can just drag on forever.
I wish more people understood that this is not about Democats vs Republicans.
They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there
would be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts.
I'm getting tired of seeing the same events trumpeted by the media and the independent prosecutor as if there was something
new. How many times can you disclose you were wiretapping one of the persons of interest or that you raided their home for documents?
I suppose that there could be a FARA violation if the person involved was involved in US foreign policy or if a false statement
were made in something official and sworn. pl
The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and
developed by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources.
But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency
about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research.
The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential
campaign. Did Mr. Comey's FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?
Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential
campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the "integrity"
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation
to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't
cooperate in contempt.
Mr. Comey investigated both leading presidential campaigns in an election year, playing the role of supposedly impartial
legal authority. But his maneuvering to get Mr. Mueller appointed, and his leaks to the press, have shown that Mr. Comey is
as political and self-serving as anyone in Washington.
No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr.
Comey's wiretaps.
And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front
of a Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on
the airport tarmac.
If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And
if she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right.
And if she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer
could be questioned under similar terms.
I rather think no staffer would be operating under the delusion that they could survive thumbing their nose at Congress like
their boss doubtless would. But then again, maybe Seth Rich's still unexplained death may serve as an incentive to them to clam
up and weather whatever consequences might flow from that decision.
Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ?
Probably none of this will happen however, this being arguably what we can expect from Imperial Politics; no longer are we
to recognize this as the functioning of a Constitutional Republic, sad to say.
Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing,
crippling, and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play.
Not, as in the case of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and
all to serve their own ends, and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as
hell rhymes.
Oh, and in a not entirely dissimilar development, in Philadelphia, and in PA, it has emerged that legal immigrants, despite
being ineligible, have registered and voted. The hend wavers at the Philadelphia Inquirer are trying to minimize this, of course.
The thought arises, if it happened in PA, what about in CA? So maybe yet again, one of President Trump's charges is true? Cue
our own crew of handwavers here at SST. Over to you, ladies and gentlemen...
Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for
political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths,
accusations and justifications.
You'll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting "any type of data at all on millions
or hundreds of millions of Americans."
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the
Iran nuclear deal.
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama.
The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email exposed by WikiLeaks should give everyone chills. It did me.
.....
I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics
have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel
agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in
on my conversations by activating the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.
We survived the government's latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There's another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department
of Justice -- like the Obama Department of Justice -- is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of
those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.
It is too early to say where this investigation is going, but there are indications that money laundering and shady real estate
transactions are scrutinized. How far up that goes, nobody knows. If close associates of Donald Trump get indicted, he will have
both legal and political problems.
Of course that is only one aspect. There may also be some serious conflict of interest problems. All of it is about to face
a burst of sunshine and that will illuminate every thing, good or bad. It appears that Donald Trump is seriously bothered by all
this activity and that in itself is interesting.
I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition.
That happens all the time and will continue to happen all the time. Seems that if anyone on
the Trump team can be found soliciting help from a foreign source, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. If anyone
can be tied to the hacking and theft of data or the use of that hacked data (there was a lot of voter data taken in addition to
the DNC and Podesta data), the crime would be engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Then, of course, there are the targets of opportunity
associated with any cover up like witness intimidation, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like.
Then there is the NYAG's investigation into Trump and his associates under NY RICO laws. That investigation is still very much
alive.
All this makes me wonder who is concentrating on the Russian IO itself. There's no crime here, besides the hacks and theft
of data, but that should be the crux of the investigation in my opinion. Perhaps Mueller is doing this. I would think he'd have
to understand exactly what was done, how it was coordinated and how it was financed before he could look for any crimes related
to this whole Russia thing.
TTG, I am not following this closely enough but for whatever reason Manafort popped up on my mind. Maybe due to earlier curiosity
concerning the Ukraine. Were would he fit in? And how?
Checking spelling of his name, I realized it made headlines again.
Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above
all else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair
shake instead of the train ride he's on.
With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies?
Exxon-Mobil certainly wanted to do that. And they don't strike me as unpatriotic dummies --
According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. The best response to an FBI agent
or any federal officer is "Have a good day Sir/Maam -- " or Buenos Dias, I prefer to have counsel with me when answering questions.
Don't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence
of our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and
that overt. Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other
countries' elections.
So whatever the Russians did or didn't do messing around with another country's elections, they're pretty far back in the queue.
I'm all for the greater readiness to investigate such matters that we see in the US; but why is the spotlight directed only into
this little corner?
Google "three felonies a day" or contemplate the words attributed to Richelieu - "Give me but six words written by the most honorable
of men, and I will find something therein to hang him with."
The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason
to imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication.
This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned
when they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not.
This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact,
law enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After
that farce, Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the
YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal.
Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the
YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and
uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from
the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent
of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of
the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish
government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The
whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous
editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support
..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you
will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State
Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did
for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the
Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval
power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was
staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just
because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran
runs through Damascus .) ..."
President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S.
conflict with Turkey . The
military junta in the White House has different
plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more
Turkish-U.S. acrimony.
Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly
announced a phone call
President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.
United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after
a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection
Units (YPG) any more .
"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.
Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017
During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan.
The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the
recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.
The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to
the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been
recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued.
In total over
3,500 truckloads
were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received
some 120 armored Humvees ,
mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.
The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post
writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain
what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the
National Security Council."
The White House finally released what the Associated Presscalled :
a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support
provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."
Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.
The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support
its
occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now,
to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":
U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters --
to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years
now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.
To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.
When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S.
announced
to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.
The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and
support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery
ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry
proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but
so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity
of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten
times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwarsreported :
Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists
in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins
Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further
arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.
But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's
promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to
pick up on the subterfuge:
President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State
in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.
...
The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration
appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the
Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue
to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition
The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic
Turkman Talaf Silo, recently
defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its
political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.
But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it
will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.
The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he
discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the
SDF.
The Turkish government released
a photograph showing
Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister
are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.
This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.
Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM |
Permalink
Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Some
interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).
But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor,
you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF
and US State Dept failed.
Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for
Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between
Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.
Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he
did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not
just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas
and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.
Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge
like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals,
therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.
The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds
maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.
Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria
as well, unless they get something in return.
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able
to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags
a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone,
it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas
will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.
Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised
if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department,
the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government
departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government
and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.
If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's
neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.
Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy
towards the Middle East.
Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at
the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always
takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big
and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing.
By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic
nationalism illegitimate?
The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting"
against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the
foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These,
plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000
US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands
and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and
foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably
continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.
(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not
farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis
etc. Who wil want their properties back.)
Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and
deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where
the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey
here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind
of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly
think internal usa conflict at this point..
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian
jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile
batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably
a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also
shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.
And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented
US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo
knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about
owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the
2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction
and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army
on his side.
Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until
now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey
and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption
of his party may be exposed.
That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward
the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG
and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight
against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence
agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot
move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery
and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at
work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition,
it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.
When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut
through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.
Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary
leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be
consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type
of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'
...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...
...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron
to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]
Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?
The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...
A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...
Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...
Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard
of living better than some European countries...etc...
Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...
We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the
dignity of the Libyan Arabs...
...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything
that can float...
Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?
...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their
own language...
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple
of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.
This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.
Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych
for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.
Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed
the Parliament.
A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland
said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for
weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).
A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense"
Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.
From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the
wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.
What we know with at least some level of confidence...
Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...
And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of
being an actual president...
This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position
that wields a lot of power...
This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with
no one by his side [other than Flynn]...
...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...
This is not the stuff leaders are made of...
The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...
Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no
matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge
to the USA.
Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding
that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.
Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.
And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games
that they won't see it coming.
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting
to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole
enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play
it.
Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't
want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with
that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?
Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal
presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask
for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays,
while from the western view, it matters greatly.
Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would
be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
- Hamlet
As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.
b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable
if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.
For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse
to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make
US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).
Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup
was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort
not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that:
the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)
Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince
Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge.
If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish
stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their
agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't
kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get
EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he
is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria,
MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring
Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more
respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move
to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"
I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence
in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.
After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?
"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army." "When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and
set a date for their departure and leave."
Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of
"we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia
offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.
As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to
get back in.
As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967
but is still a member of NATO
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being,
you know, "committed" to it.
So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated
Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.
But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly
that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.
That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.
After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others
among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).
If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because
he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural
opposition.
Big mistake dumping Flynn.
Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys
the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will
history show occured?
ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United
States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection
Units (YPG).
"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight
against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.
Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government
for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to
provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.
Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the
ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know
he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."
That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what
would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when
NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
Perestroika and Trump_vs_deep_state has one important thing in common -- they arose out of deep crisis of the
Soviet Society and the US neoliberal society, correspondingly
Notable quotes:
"... The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. ..."
"... For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric ..."
"... When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created. ..."
"... The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives ..."
"... Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin. And no, that is not intended as a compliment. MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum. Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment. Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere. M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true. Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt. John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL. vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth. He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights. He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism. spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore. Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings. connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm " in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things." This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level. Lots of questions. No answers. polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition. ..."
TAC'
s own Rod Dreher recently
highlighted an American professor's exchange with an African diplomat, who compared Donald
Trump to Mikhail Gorbachev. Just as the last Soviet premier unwittingly became "the man who
destroyed a superpower," Trump in this view is recklessly squandering the United States' global
position. But upon reflection, the analogy holds for another reason: Whatever Trump's own
mixture of "irritable mental gestures," Trump_vs_deep_state -- as articulated by Steve Bannon, Laura
Ingraham, Michael Anton & Company -- can be read as a sort of perestroika for the
American Right.
A reader may naturally look warily at the comparison. Can one discern a link between the
rhetoric of Breitbart and Gorbachev's exhortation, "to reject obedience to any dogma, to think
independently, to submit one's thoughts and plans of action to the test of morality"? However
reaching, the comparison may allow us to discern why debates over immigration and trade now
capture the conservative imagination in a way not reducible to "white identity politics" or
reflexive loyalty to the president.
The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both
transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the
regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters,
and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative
movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics
and the role of the state. The appeal of nationalist rhetoric is not reducible to
nativism, though it might be for some. Instead, Bannon's program offers conservatives a safe
exit ramp from self-critical thinking, allowing them to both grapple with an erosion of work
and community among America's economic losers, while maintaining most of an existing right-wing
economic program.
In a 1987 message to the Communist Party's Central Committee, Gorbachev flaunted the Soviet
order for its "conservative inclinations, inertia, and desire to brush aside everything that
didn't fit into habitual patterns." This is the same critique offered by the Jacksonian Right
of the conservative establishment. "The whole enterprise of Conservative Inc.," wrote
Michael Anton in his famous "Flight 93 Election" essay, "reeks of failure. Its sole recent and
ongoing success is its own self-preservation."
For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a
nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a
formerly rich institutional fabric Laura Ingraham's description of "a working class hammered by
globalization" would not seem foreign to readers of Our Kids, Hillbilly Elegy, or
Janesville . At its most tone-deaf, the Right responds with incantations to
"rekindle the rugged individualism of America's founding, frontiers, and Constitution." But
even those on the center-right with sincere empathy frequently offer only small-ball politics.
For all their merits ,
a modest increase of the Child Tax Credit, repeal of occupational licensing, vouchers for
improved geographic mobility, and moral exhortations for coastal elites to escape their bubble
do not match the gravity of the moment. In a certain way, the Bannonite call for the wall and
ripping up trade agreements is a rebellion against a purely technocratic politics without
boldness of purpose. When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens
with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and
disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity"
cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created.
Trade and immigration are becoming the signature benchmarks for this new movement. Yet the
Jacksonian shift allows conservatives to still maintain their aversion to a strong, active
welfare state, an institution all other Western center-right parties have come to terms with.
Limiting the fluid movement of goods and people, in this view, will accomplish the same goals
as a state modeled on social or Christian-democratic purposes: We do not need to expand child
tax credits or pursue ambitious investments of retraining and vocational education. All our
struggling labor markets
demand is "stopping the importation of cheap labor." At the same time, we can press ahead
to repeal Obamacare and the tentacles of the administrative state, for economic nationalism can
ameliorate our social problems far better than any program arising out of the Washington
cesspool. Perhaps this strategy explains why, according to
Pew Research , the president maintains far more support among "Core Conservatives" than
"Country First" and "Market Skeptic" Republicans. The Trump revolution is ultimately not a
decisive schism from old-time William F. Buckley-style fusionism, no matter what both
supporters and Never Trumpers allege.
Systematic free-marketers may point out accurately how Trump_vs_deep_state can be just as economically
redistributive as any welfare program. This is all true, but to most conservative activists,
all this subtle redistribution and subsidizing looks far more hidden than paid-family leave or
public investments in early childhood or prenatal care. In other words, Trump_vs_deep_state's attraction
derives not from its wholesale rejection of traditional American conservatism, but its
potential to keep its core tenets of the right alive -- even as neoliberalism's inadequacies
suggest what is needed is a more vigorous discussion of what conservatism means in the public
sphere.
If Trump_vs_deep_state's fundamental attraction to most conservative writers and activists derives from
its ability to revise but sustain their movement, it is difficult to see how it will be to
evolve into a credible governing program. This is not because a more hawkish line on
immigration and trade is a fundamental betrayal of the "liberal world order." Indeed, one need
only read
Paul CollierGeorge BorjasMichael
Lind ,
Peter Skerry , or Dani
Rodrik to find sustained, reasonable critiques of the establishment consensus on these
matters.
But none of these authors would present their heterodox dissents as singular solutions for
restoring the American (or Western) social contract. Just as Gorbachev's ambition was not to
revitalize Russia but the Soviet Union, so is Trump_vs_deep_state not a program to save the Republic, or
even a more narrow "Middle America." Despite the Jacobin rhetoric, the Trump_vs_deep_state of Bannon,
Anton, and Ingraham is ultimately a rearguard maneuver to preserve a conservative movement
whose even devoted partisans recognize has not aged gracefully since 1989. To keep it alive,
wrecking the "globalist" consensus on immigration and trade must be pursued, regardless of the
absence of any discernible benefit for the white working class.
What would a true revolution for American conservatism look like? It should start with the
(early) thought of George Will, who wrote in the New Republic that, "if conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now, it
must address government's graver purposes with an affirmative doctrine of the welfare state."
Conservatives must "come to terms with a social reality more complex than their slogans," where
equality of opportunity is assumed as given. The Hayekian claim that any language of social
justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury
sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing
demanding claims upon our lives .
The Right must again recover the
wisdom held by Disraeli, Churchill, and the (early) domestic neoconservatives, in which the
state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together,
where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity
and justice are indeed tangible things. Accepting this truth will be a harder project than
tightening the border and combating Chinese mercantilism, worthy though such things may be. But
it will be far more revolutionary, even historic, than anything the present Trumpian revolution
offers.
David Jimenez, a recent graduate of Bowdoin College and a Fulbright Scholar in Romania,
works on campus outreach at a Washington think-tank.
Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living
standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out
about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to
disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas –
rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially
created vacuum.
Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of
morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian
morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment.
You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current
welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to
not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job
training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even
our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially
unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their
rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true.
I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare
State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently
the model is subsidized with debt.
Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification
and to increase his wealth.
He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world
leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights.
He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has
put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism.
People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but
cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not
– this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another
people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it
seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings
that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so
called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being
censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore.
Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat,
Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in
insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human
beings.
" in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared
life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in
which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things."
This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful
article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life
together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is
a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the
first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level.
Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it
more palatable.
Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake
image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done
nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition.
"For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation
whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich
institutional fabric."
But Trump might already be betraying it, as this article on banking (de)regulation
suggests. It doesn't bode will for what the tax reform bill would mean for the 80% in the
bottom quintiles of the population.
Unfortunately the entrenched social democratic welfare state will not lead to serfdom but to
a dysfunctional society. This is the lesson from independent india which has no political
party representing individualistic policies. The current Hindu nationalist party in power
caters to Hindu sentiments but a redistributive economic policy. As an outsider i see USA
following the same path with islands of functionality sustaining barely, the rest. Hopefully
the author would join in a length discussion with me on this
Dear America. Stop trying to make Russiagate happen. It's not going to happen. Deus ex
Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to solve your country's problems yourselves,
America. He may dig up evidence of corruption, but Robert Mueller's investigation will never
– ever – find proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election
using hackers and propaganda. If you attribute all your problems to Trump, you're guaranteeing
more Trumps after him, because you're not addressing the disease which created him, you're just
addressing the symptom.
A while back I figured out a trick for using Twitter as a tool to find out what sorts of
things establishment loyalists really don't want me saying. Once I discover a really hot
button, I write an article that bangs on that button as hard as possible. One of those buttons is
expressing my certainty that Robert Mueller's investigation will never, ever find any proof
that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda.
We are not allowed to say such things. If you debate a Russiagater for any length of time
and you know how to debunk their assertions, they always, always, always wind up resorting to a
"just you wait until Mueller finishes his investigation" declaration, which from my point of
view is the same as debating a fundamentalist Christian whose argument boils down to "Well I'll
be proven right when you die and God sends you to Hell!"
You can always feel right if you kick the can around some corner in the future that can't be
seen and analyzed critically. Luckily for us, we've got information that we can look at right
now which does not require any religious faith ...
Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for
Evidence https://t.co/OB33Xbb49V
We know from the Snowden leaks on the NSA, the CIA files released by WikiLeaks, and the
ongoing controversies regarding FBI surveillance that the US intelligence community has the
most expansive, most sophisticated and most intrusive surveillance network in the history of
human civilization
Following the presidential election last year, anonymous sources from within the
intelligence community were hemorrhaging leaks to the press on a regular basis that were
damaging to the incoming administration.
If there was any evidence to be found that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government
to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda, the US intelligence community would
have found it and leaked it to the New York Times or the Washington Post last year.
Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast, sprawling networks wouldn't
have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by "following the money" that couldn't be
found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The factions within the
intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming administration last year
would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not have it then, and they do
not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption throughout his
investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he will not find
evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's impeachment. It will
not happen.
This sits on top of all the many ,
many , many
reasons to be extremely suspicious of the Russiagate narrative in the first place
Russia-gate's Shaky
Doundation - The Russia-gate hysteria now routinely includes rhetoric about the U.S. being
at "war" with nuclear-armed Russia, but the shaky factual foundation continues to show more
cracks, as historian Daniel Herman describes.
Russigate Is More Fiction Than Fact - From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to
Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence.
The Big
Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery - Russiagate is like a mirage: from a distance it
looks like something, but once you move in for a closer look, there's nothing there. Nothing.
Nothing solid, nothing substantial, nothing you can point at and say, "Here it is."
Humans are storytelling creatures.
The most significant and most underappreciated facet of our existence is how much of our
interface with the world consists not of our direct experience of it, but of our mental stories
about it. Combine that fact with the century of
research and development that has gone into refining propaganda tactics and the US
plutocracy's stranglehold
on mainstream media , and you get a nation lost in establishment narratives. People forming
their worldviews based on phantasms of the mind instead of concrete facts.
I've noticed a strange uptick in establishment loyalists speaking to me as though
Trump-Russia collusion is already an established fact, and that I'm simply not well-informed.
There is still the same amount of publicly available evidence for this collusion as there ever
was (zero), so this tells me that the only thing which has changed is the narrative.
Pundits/propagandists are increasingly speaking as though this is something that has already
been established, and the people who consume that propaganda go out and circulate it as though
it's an established fact. When you're not plugged into
that echo chamber , though, it looks very weird.
This is why Russiagaters find my certainty that collusion will never be proven so intensely
abrasive. Their entire worldview consists of pure narrative? -- ?literally nothing other than
authoritative assertions from pundits who speak in a confident tone of voice? -- ?so when they
encounter someone doing the same thing but with hard facts, it causes psychological discomfort.
This discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. It's what being wrong feels like.
I mean, I get it. Really, I do. When I stop listening to the narratives of both his
supporters and his detractors and just look at the hard facts, from my point of view Trump is
doing some really shitty things and
doesn't seem much different from his neoliberal neocon predecessors. Republicans are
horrible, and he seems pretty much like a garden variety Republican who says rude things on
Twitter. If I look at those hard facts, then add in two years of psychological brutalization by
the corporate media telling Americans that Trump is an evil Nazi who will turn the country into
a smouldering crater, I can understand why people would be in a hurry to get him out of
office.
And when I converse with Russiagaters, that's generally what this boils down to. "Impeach
Trump" is a punishment in search of a crime. They've been whipped into a frenzied state of fear
by establishment psyops, and they want Mueller to pull a deus ex machina and save them from the
evil orange monster. They believe Mueller will get Trump impeached for Russian collusion
because they badly want to.
It's not going to happen, though. Deus ex Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to
solve your country's problems yourselves, America.
And this is actually a good thing, because Trump is not the source of your country's
problems. Believing that a Trump impeachment will fix any of America's major ills is like
believing cough suppressants cure pneumonia. What do you get when you have pneumonia and you
take cough suppressants instead of antibiotics? You get wrong-sounding Muppets, that's
what.
It might well be that Chrystal night in KSA can be a serious blow to fouces which
want to depose President Trump. People arrested, especally prince
Bandar know way
too much. I wonder what will happen if Trump manage to get from Mohammed bin Salman
protocols of interrogation of Price Bandarr on interesting to him topics.
Notable quotes:
"... The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful. ..."
"... Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers ..."
"... William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25] ..."
"... Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey. ..."
"... So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public. ..."
"... CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. ..."
It all began with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in the Saudi city of
Khobar, which killed 19 U.S. military, who worked at the
Dharan air base
three miles away.
Both Robert Mueller and his longtime ally James
Comey (the latter of whose firing as the FBI chief, by U.S. President Trump, had sparked the
appointment of Mueller to become the Special Counsel investigating the U.S. President) performed
crucial roles in establishing that the Khobar Towers bombing had been a Hezbollah operation run by
the Iranian Government - and, starting upon this basis, in helping to develop the case that Iran
"is the foremost state
sponsor of terrorism."
However, as has been made clear by several great independent investigative journalists, on the
basis of far more-solid documentation than the official account, the Khobar Towers bombing was instead
entirely a fundamentalist-Sunni operation, specifically perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which hates Shia
and which also hates America's military presence in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's
claim of the bombing's having been done by Al Qaeda, was, in fact, entirely honest and accurate.
America's "Deep State," which extends to Saudi Arabia and to a number of other Governments - it's
an international network - is deeply committed to supporting the fundamentalist-Sunni war to conquer
and destroy Shia Islam, and not merely to conquer the leading Shia nation, which is Iran. The U.S.
Government has intensely taken a side in the Sunni-Shia religious war. That war is comparable in
some respects to the 30
Years' War (1618-1648) between Catholics and Protestants , which killed an estimated eight million
Europeans; and, both the United States and Israel have clearly joined with the fundamentalist-Sunni
leaders, against Iran, and against Shia generally.
The reasons behind the prevailing lies about this matter will also be documented here. Discrepancies
between the official story and the solidly documented facts, need to be explained, in order for a
reader to be able to understand truthfully why Mueller (who cooperated with Comey in order to rig
the official account of the bombing, so as to condemn Iran and Hezbollah instead of Al Qaeda) received
his appointment. This is also important in order to understand why Trump, though rabidly anti-Iranian
himself, is nonetheless insufficiently anti-Iranian to satisfy the Sauds, Israel's Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, or the rest of the U.S.-and-allied Deep State.
Before proceeding further here, however, the statistical falseness of the allegation that Iran
is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism has to be clearly recognized as being the ultimate fact
; because, if this entire question - to which Mueller and Comey contributed so importantly to answering
by their identifying Iran (and Shia generally) as being precisely that ('the foremost state sponsor
of terrorism') -- can be assessed at all objectively, then the statistical answer to it would certainly
be the objective one.
Wikipedia's article on
"Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" says: "According to the
Global Terrorism Database , the majority of deaths, more than 94% attributed to Islamic terrorism
since 2001, were perpetrated by Sunni
jihadists of the
Islamic State ,
al-Qaeda and others.
[3][4] ." Only 6% were Shiites, at all -- from any country. Similarly, my own independent
study of 54 especially prominent global instances of Islamic terrorism was headlined (and reported
that)
"All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel."
(The anti-Israel terrorist instances might constitute the "6%" which was referred to in the Wikipedia
article, but that article provided no good link to its source for the "6%" figure.)
So: the basic allegation is false, that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism; the general
allegation isn't anywhere near to being true. It's a lie.
More specifically, now, regarding the Khobar Towers incident, which triggered the start of this
fraudulent generalization:
The Saudi royal family asserted, immediately after the bombing, that the attack had been perpetrated
by jihadists who had returned from Afghanistan and who were now fighting to overthrow Saudi Arabia's
Government (the royal Saud family).
Then, starting in 1980,
"From the Pakistani border, bin Laden raises funds and provides the mujahedeen with logistical and
humanitarian aid." So, the Sauds' allegation that the Khobar bombers had been "veterans of the
Afghan war" would have meant that they had been foot-soldiers for the U.S.-Saudi operation in Afghanistan.
Both the U.S. Government and the Saud family (who own the Saudi Government) hate Shia and especially
hate Iran. Hezbollah are Shia, and they are extremely pro-Iran. How likely is it that Hezbollah,
anywhere, would have been fighting under the command of Al Qaeda, or of any other fundamentalist-Sunni
jihadist organization that calls all Shia "infidels"? So, the Sauds' account of the Khobar Towers
bombing is fishy, at best.
Furthermore, a Google-search for the phrase
"Hezbollah in Afghanistan" turns up only "6 results," and all of them say nothing about any "Hezbollah
in Afghanistan." No report comes up about such a thing, for any year, or any period. The only countries
where Hezbollah was reported to exist were Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. One of the links in that Google
search was globally comprehensive for the year 2007, the Center on International Cooperation's
"Annual Review of Global Peace Operations -- 2007" . It included reports on wars during that
year, in 26 countries, and the chapter for Afghanistan (pages 52-58) doesn't mention Hezbollah even
once. However, a search for the phrase "Hezbollah Afghanistan" does bring up
"Syria's Other Foreign Fighters: Iran's Afghan and Pakistani Mercenaries" , at the neoconservative
(and thus favoring not only the American aristocracy but its allied aristocracies -- especially in
Saudi Arabia and Israel) The National Interest, dated 20 November 2015. That article says, "The liwa'
fatimiyun (Fatimiyun Brigade) is composed exclusively of Afghans and fights under the auspices of
Hezbollah Afghanistan," based in Syria. Other supposed foreign Shiites trying to overthrow Syria's
Government are mentioned, as being supposedly "Pakistanis fighting in Syria under the Hezbollah flag."
However, if these allegations are true, then those men would be opponents of Syria's secular government,
which is headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad, who is being attacked by fundamentalist Sunnis
-- including both ISIS and Al Qaeda there -- who are trying to kill Hezbollah in Syria, who are,
in fact, defending Assad. (Such illogical 'historical' accounts as that, are normal in neoconservative
publications -- counterfactuality is entirely acceptable to them.) Either that, or else the alleged
Shiite Pakistanis who are fighting in Syria to overthrow the Shiite Assad and replace him with a
fundamentalist Sunni regime, would be -- not actually members of Hezbollah, but instead -- Shiites
from Pakistan who came to Syria in order to help actually not to overthrow the Government but to
defend it against its rabidly anti-Shia attackers. That's the opposite of the assumption that The
National Interest made, but it conceivably could be the case.
A Pew survey scientifically randomly sampled 1,512 Pakistanis, and found that 1,450 of them declared
themselves to be "Muslim," which is 96%. It also found that 94% of Pakistanis (of any or no faith)
say that religion is "very important" in their lives, and found that 81% of the Muslims said they
were "Sunni," 6% said they were "Shiite," and 12% said they were "Just a Muslim." So, only 6% of
Pakistanis identify themselves specifically as "Shia." That is such a small percentage of Shiites
in Pakistan, as to make unlikely any significant contribution that Pakistanis would be providing
to the defense of Syria, which is at least 1,800 miles or 2,900 kilometers, away -- not even in the
same general region. But, in any case, that neoconservative magazine's assumptions regarding the
entire matter are clearly false.
Clearly, then, the logical feasibility of the U.S. Government's case against Iran is so tiny as
to constitute almost an absolute impossibility of that case being true.
Now, then, let's consider the specifics of the case
True-blue Democrats may want to skip the next paragraphs. If President Bush put the kibosh on
investigations of Saudi funding of terror and nuclear bomb programs, this was merely taking a policy
of Bill Clinton one step further.
Following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, Clinton hunted Osama with a passion
-- but a passion circumscribed by the desire to protect the sheikdom sitting atop our oil lifeline.
In 1994, a Saudi diplomat defected to the United States with 14,000 pages of documents from the kingdom's
sealed file cabinets. This mother lode of intelligence included evidence of plans for the assassination
of Saudi opponents living in the West and, tantalizingly, details of the $7 billion the Saudis gave
to Saddam Hussein for his nuclear program -- the first attempt to build an Islamic bomb. The Saudi
government, according to the defector, Mohammed Al Khilewi, slipped Saddam the nuclear loot during
the Reagan and Bush Sr. years when our government still thought Saddam too marvelous for words [because
he was trying to slaughter Shiite Iran]. The thought was that he would only use the bomb to vaporize
Iranians [which the rulers of both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia -- and of Israel -- would love].
Clinton granted the Saudi defector asylum, but barred the FBI from looking at the documents. Al
Khilewi's New York lawyer, Michael Wildes, told me he was stunned. Wildes handles some of America's
most security-sensitive asylum cases. "We said (to the FBI), 'Here, take the documents! Go get some
bad guys with them! We'll even pay for the photocopying!" But the agents who came to his office had
been ordered not to accept evidence of Saudi criminal activity, even on U.S. soil.
In 1997, the Canadians caught and extradited to America one of the [Saudi-Government-alleged]
Khobar Towers attackers. In 1999, Vernon Jordan's law firm stepped in and -- poof! -- the [Saudi-alleged]
killer was shipped back to Saudi Arabia before he could reveal all he knew about Al Qaeda (valuable)
and the Saudis (embarrassing). I reviewed but was not permitted to take notes on, the alleged [finally,
Palast is getting that right] terrorist's debriefing by the FBI. To my admittedly inexpert eyes,
there was enough on Al Qaeda to make him a source on terrorists worth holding on to. Not that he
was set free -- he's in one of the kingdom's dungeons [likelier dead soon after arriving back in
Saudi Arabia] -- but his info is sealed up with him. The terrorist's extradition was "Clinton's."
"Clinton's parting kiss to the Saudis," as one insider put it.
Another great investigative journalist is Seymour Hersh, who in the 22 October 2001 issue of the
New Yorker, headlined
"King's Ransom"
and he opened:
Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts
of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd.
The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank
and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds
of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to
overthrow it.
The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin
Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and
throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official
told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys -- it's like the Grand Alliance -- and had a capability
for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side."
Subsequently, he noted:
In 1994, Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations,
defected and sought political asylum in the United States. He brought with him, according to his
New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting
the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists.
He claimed to have evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas,
the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel. There was a meeting at the lawyer's office with
two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. "We gave them a sampling of the documents
and put them on the table," Wildes told me last week. "But the agents refused to accept them." He
and his client heard nothing further from federal authorities. Al-Khilewi, who was granted asylum,
is now living under cover.
The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert
on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never
met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar
with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful."
Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them
needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers.
The New York Times's
report , on 15 August 1996, quoted a leading Saudi dissident in London as asserting that, "As
far as I know, Prince Nayef is keeping the Americans away from all the details at this point." This
report went on: "In a statement responding to the earlier reports of confessions, Prince Nayef said
Saudi Arabia would make an announcement as soon as the investigation is completed. His comments were
also viewed as refuting earlier suggestions by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, who had said
that Saudi investigations might point to an Iranian connection." In other words, at that time (as
of August 15th), the U.S. official was suggesting "an Iranian connection" but the Saudi official
wasn't -- at least, not yet -- and the expectation was that "confessions" would be providing the
decisive 'evidence'. However, these 'confessions', in Saudi cases are typically 'information' extracted
under torture, and, where that fails to obtain the 'information' that's desired by the Government,
then threats to destroy the person's immediate family are applied; so, the Sauds famously usually
do get exactly the 'information' that they want (regardless of whether it's true).
The Wikipedia article "Khobar Towers bombing"
summarizes the 'findings' by the U.S. FBI and courts, and ignores the Sauds' 'investigation(s)',
because nothing was ever made public from the Sauds' Government or officials or anyone there, about
what they 'found' (other than 'found' by torture). Wikipedia's article, which is based entirely upon
the U.S. Government (the first party to broach publicly the possibility of "an Iranian connection")
states flatly, right up front, "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."
In common parlance, that's Hezbollah, an "Iranian connection" -- exactly what the U.S. Government
wanted.
Here's what that article asserts regarding the operations of the alleged mastermind:
In June 2001, an indictment was issued in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia charging the following people with murder, conspiracy, and other
charges related to the bombing:[18]
The Wikipedia article then continued by listing the other alleged defendants:
Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser
Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub
Hani al-Sayegh who had been previously in U.S. custody but deported to Saudi Arabia, when
charges against him were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
Eight other Saudis
One Lebanese man listed as "John Doe".
In July 2001, Saudi Arabia said that eleven of the people indicted in the US were in custody
in Saudi prisons, and were to be tried in Saudi court, as the country refused to extradite any
of them to the United States to stand trial.[19] The government has not since made public the
outcome of the trial or the whereabouts of the prisoners.
All six of the named persons there were Shiites in Saudi Arabia. The respective Wikipedia articles
on each provide no evidence that any of them was at all involved in the bombing. However, the
article on Hani al-Sayegh
, who was living in Canada, is extraordinarily honest: it indicates that he said he had had nothing
whatsoever to do with any bombings, nor any terrorism at all, and that the U.S. Government tried
to get him to confess to something on the basis of which he could be tried and convicted in the
U.S., but that he continued to resist all plea-offers, and to maintain that they were seeking
to get him to lie, which he would not do. So, since the U.S. would not torture him on U.S. soil,
the U.S. deported him "to Saudi Arabia on October 10, 1999 where it was assumed he would be executed
upon arrival.[3][12]." But the Saudi regime never announced anything about any of the men they
were charging in the Khobar Towers bombing.
The FBI
issued charges against al-Sayegh and 12 others (all allegedly Hezbollah) on 21 June 2001 ,
for the bombing; and, since that time, the only publication of their names has been in regards
to the mere presumption that they were guilty. Their
indictments in the U.S. (without evidence), and (since the Saudi Government wouldn't say anything
about them -- not even whether they were in prison or free there) the charge in U.S. courts that
Iran had helped them to do it, were 100% based upon that 'evidence'. Therefore, Iran was declared
guilty in U.S. courts, and fined,
again
, and
again , over $500 million in all, without any reliable evidence, at all, that Iran had anything
to do with the Khobar Towers bombing. And, not a cent of those fines was paid; but the U.S. Government's
purpose was served nonetheless: getting Iran's 'guilt' onto the official record, such that Wikipedia,
for example could say "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."
The Wikipedia article on the Khobar Towers bombing closed, however, by saying:
William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing
happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was
behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25]
On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible
for the attack, stating that the leading experts on Hezbollah presented "overwhelming" evidence
of the group's involvement and that six captured Hezbollah members detailed the role of Iranian
officials in providing money, plans, and maps.[4] This decision was reached as a default judgment,
however, in which the Iranian government was not represented in court, and had no opportunity
to challenge the allegations.
People who trust the U.S. Government's honesty will interpret the outcome as displaying legal
and judicial incompetency, not as displaying political and propagandistic competency.
William Perry announced his opinion only after the 2006 court 'finding' of Iran's 'guilt' in
the case. The UPI article on this opened
and closed as follows:
Perry: U.S. eyed Iran attack after bombing
Published: June 6, 2007 at 4:25 PM
WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- A former U.S. defense secretary says he now believes al-Qaida rather
than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry said he had a contingency plan to attack Iran if the
link had been proven, but evidence was not to either his nor President Bill Clinton's satisfaction.
The attack would have struck "at a number of their military facilities that would have weakened
-- substantially weakened ... the Iranian navy and air force," he said in New York Tuesday during
a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry
said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was
not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran."
He said al-Qaida did not emerge as a major threat until Clinton's second term.
"We probably should have been more concerned about it at the time than we were but in the first
term we did not see Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a major factor, or one that we were concerned
with," he said.
In 2001, the U.S. Justice Department announced a 46-count indictment against 13 Saudis and
one Lebanese man in the bombing. All were allegedly connected to Hezbollah, a terrorist group
the United States believes is linked to Iran.
Perry said the FBI strongly believed at the time the bombing was ordered by Iran, but Saudi
officials tried to discourage that theory.
"They feared what action we would take. They rightly feared it. In fact, I had a contingency
plan for a strike on Iran, if it had been if it had been clearly established. But it was never
clearly established, and so we never did that," Perry said.
So, although Wikipedia started by alleging "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party
of God in the Hijaz)" -- and in plain language, that's Hezbollah -- it ended by kaboshing that
very theory of the case, which the Wikipedia article had been 'documenting' (with bad logic and
some false 'facts').
Subsequently, the fine investigative journalist Gareth Porter explained how Perry had come
to think that Iran and Hezbollah had been the culprit. Perry had trusted the head of the FBI,
Louis Freeh. Perry didn't know that, behind the scenes, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud
(who was his family's U.S. Ambassador) had told Freeh that Iran and Hezbollah did it. Furthermore,
the Sauds had actually blocked the FBI's own investigators from having access to the site or to
any of the evidence (other than by providing Freeh himself access to the torture-extracted 'confessions').
Initially, in fact, the Sauds even started bulldozing the site.
The first part of Porter's five-part report was titled
"EXCLUSIVE -- PART 1: Al Qaeda Excluded from the Suspects List" . It said: "The Saudi bulldozing
stopped only after Scott Erskine, the supervisory FBI special agent for international terrorism
investigations, threatened that Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who happened to be in Saudi
Arabia when the bomb exploded, would intervene personally on the matter." It said there was: "a
systematic effort by the Saudis to obstruct any U.S. investigation of the bombing and to deceive
the United States about who was responsible for the bombing. The Saudi regime steered the FBI
investigation toward Iran and its Saudi Shi'a allies with the apparent intention of keeping U.S.
officials away from a trail of evidence that would have led to Osama bin Laden and a complex set
of ties between the regime and the Saudi terrorist organiser."
The fourth part was titled
"EXCLUSIVE -- PART 4: FBI Ignored Compelling Evidence of bin Laden Role" . It noted that,
" In October 1996, after having issued yet another fatwa calling on Muslims to drive U.S. soldiers
out of the Kingdom, bin Laden was quoted in al Quds al Arabi, the Palestinian daily published
in London, as saying, 'The crusader army was shattered when we bombed Khobar.'"
The key to the success of the Saudi deception was FBI director Louis Freeh, who took personal
charge of the FBI investigation, letting it be known within the Bureau that he was the "case officer"
for the probe, according to former FBI officials. Freeh allowed Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to convince him that Iran was involved
in the bombing, and that President Bill Clinton, for whom he had formed a visceral dislike, "had
no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers," as Freeh wrote in his
memoirs.
The Khobar Towers investigation soon became Freeh's vendetta against Clinton. "Freeh was pursuing
this for his own personal agenda," says former FBI agent Jack Cloonan.
A former high-ranking FBI official recalls that Freeh "was always meeting with Bandar". And
many of the meetings were not in Freeh's office but at Bandar's 38-room home in McLean, Virginia. Meanwhile, the Saudis were refusing the most basic FBI requests for cooperation. Freeh quickly made Iranian and Saudi Shi'a responsibility for the bombing the official premise
of the investigation, excluding from the inquiry the hypothesis that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
organisation had carried out the Khobar Towers bombing.
The CIA's bin Laden unit, which had only been established in early 1996, was also excluded
by CIA leadership from that Agency's work on the bombing.
In order to build a legal case against Iran and Shi'a Saudis, Freeh had to get access to the
Shi'a detainees who had confessed. But the Saudis never agreed to allow FBI officials to interview
them. In early November 1998, Freeh sent an FBI team to observe Saudi secret police officials
asking eight Shi'a detainees the FBI's questions from behind a one-way mirror at the Riyadh detention
center.
By then Saudi secret police had already had two and half years to coach the detainees on what
to say, under the threat of more torture. But Freeh didn't care. "For Louis, if they would let
us in the room, that was the important thing," a senior FBI official involved in the Khobar investigation
told me. "We would have gone over there and gotten the answers even if they had been propped up."
But the Justice Department refused to go ahead with an indictment based on the information
the FBI team brought back. Department lawyers knew the Shi'a detainees had been subject to torture,
so they have ruled that the confessions were not valid.
In other words: the head of the FBI believed torture-extracted 'confessions' as if such would
meet U.S. rules of evidence -- which they don't. And coaching of witnesses is likewise prohibited
-- under U.S. laws.
Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and
Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening
days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob
Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case
to Comey.
When he finally did so, Mueller called Comey with a warning: "Wilma Lewis is going to be so
pissed." Indeed, Lewis blasted the decision, as well as both Freeh and Mueller personally, in
a press release, saying the move was "ill-conceived and ill-considered." But Freeh's gambit paid
off.
Within weeks, Comey had pulled together the indictment. During a National Security Council
briefing at the White House, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Comey presented overwhelming
evidence of Iran's involvement.
On the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations, fourteen individuals were indicted
for the attack. Freeh, who stepped down the next day, said the indictment was "a major step."
So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted
successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince
Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence',
then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller
are a team - a team that
serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public.
Our continuing war against Iran is due entirely to their crucial assistance. The Deep State
appoints such individuals.
* * *
CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed
here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment,
I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and
free-of-charge basis to publish. Since none of them will pay me for publishing it, I shall be
happy if any publish it without charge, even small 'alternative news' sites online, because -
and especially if a mainstream newsmedium relents and decides to publish it - then perhaps the
embargo against the truth of such important matters being published in the United States and its
vassal nations, will come to be broken , and the 'news'media in America and in those other countries,
might then terminate being actually the U.S-regime's propaganda-media, and might finally begin
to pay penance for their all having helped the U.S. Government to deceive the American (and allied-nations')
public into supporting the regime's entirely lie-based invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, of Iraq
in 2003, of Libya in 2012, of Syria since 2012, of U.S. coups elsewhere (such as in
Ukraine ), and, now, potentially repeating it yet again with invasions or coups against Iran
or other countries that the U.S. elite want to grab and add to their growing U.S. empire.
If Iran becomes invaded, or another U.S. coup becomes perpetrated there (such as
in 1953 ), then
perhaps Russia's only realistic response -- as being the ultimate U.S. target -- will be a blitz
nuclear attack to destroy the United States, in recognition of the U.S. Government's fanatical
reach to control a total global empire -- total global strangulation of freedom and of peace,
everywhere. After all, if Russia waits till after a U.S. lie-based invasion of Iran, then it will
be simply waiting for a blitz nuclear attack by the U.S. and its NATO alliance against Russia
itself, which would be even worse for the world than Russia's striking first -- though the world
would end, either way. The U.S. Government now seems to be an out-of-control spreading cancer,
a terminal threat to the world in every regard. It's already recognized throughout the world as
being
"the greatest threat to peace in the world today" . And its 'news'media have helped to keep
it that way.
Here is the list of 39 publications that this article had been submitted to as an exclusive
(and, of course, it's now being submitted to them, too, yet again, but this time on a non-exclusive,
non-fee, basis, along with being submitted to all the rest of the regime's press, including broadcast
media):
McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Harper's, TIME, The New
Republic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, The Nation, Progressive, National Review, New Yorker,
Rolling Stone, Business Week, Forbes, Politico, thedailybeast, huffingtonpost, slate, bloomberg,
businessinsider, newsweek, theintercept, breitbart, alternet, newsbud, spiked-online, vice, mintpressnews,
truthdig, truth-out, Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail, Spectator, London Review of Books, New
Statesman, Spiegel.
There is some important to note "cognitive dissonance" here: if Trump is as stupid as appears from his current policies why in
the past he was insightful enough to understand important events in proper light? Something here does not compute...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine. ..."
"... He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; ..."
"... And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy. ..."
"... And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter. ..."
"... And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right. ..."
"... When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing. ..."
"... I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet. ..."
"... His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable. ..."
"... One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it? ..."
Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes
of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine.
He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official
narrative; and for example to question the safety of the deluge of vaccines that kids especially are being subjected to,
while simultaneously there is an unprecedented 'epidemic' of autism and asthma in children.
And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state
disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy.
And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person
has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public
via twitter.
And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just
about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right.
When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but
it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course
depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access
to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information
Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies."
"b" - I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence
that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he
needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very
bright indeed and quick on his feet.
Not well informed? I can't argue with that, not after Khan Shaykhun, but the same blanket of misinformation that covers almost
all of us in Europe or the States will presumably cover New York property developers. In the echo chamber that is Washington DC
I doubt there's much chance of remedying that. I speak to responsible well-educated people regularly whose knowledge of what is
happening abroad you would condemn as pitifully inadequate. Rightfully so. Those of you who have a more accurate idea of the facts
are few, and those of us who hear you are also in a tiny minority. That's a fact of life and we can no more condemn Trump for
being ill-informed than we can the most of your and my neighbours.
I pin my hopes on the fact that he does have a good intuition and is, as I say, quick on his feet. With such a person reality
has a better chance of getting through than it would with the usual tunnel vision politician.
His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support
Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the
case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion
or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless,
given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for
a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable.
His other policies? You do not write on the economy on your site. The European economies, that of the UK in particular, and
the American economy, are in a bad way. Urgently so. I can therefore only put forward as a view that the solutions proposed by
Trump in 2016 offered the only chance, if a slim one, of turning that round.
One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in
Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well.
And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have
relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems
there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent
of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and
the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics
in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it?
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic
attempt trying to fix small issues.
They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought
about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence
community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies
(NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition:
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and
over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on
which the government can play." ―
Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails
to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead
to success."
―
Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed
U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from
the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own
admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.
... ... ...
To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played
a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special
counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear
document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the
dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the
dossier?
The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American
citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit
document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a
single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump
team members.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with
one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to
multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo
meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak
of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian
hackers.
William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the
conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24
-- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first
reported by The Intercept.
The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by
saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community
assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
US President Donald Trump said he had "good discussions" with Russian leader Vladimir Putin
when they met briefly at an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam.
On Twitter, he blasted "haters and fools", who, he said, do not encourage good relations between
the countries.
Earlier he said Mr Putin told him he was insulted by allegations of Russian interference in the
2016 US election.
The US intelligence community has previously concluded that Russia tried to sway the poll in Mr
Trump's favour.
"He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election," the US president said.
However, after intense criticism, Mr Trump clarified hat he supported US intelligence agencies in
their conclusion. "As to whether or not I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies. I believe in
our... intelligence agencies," he said.
"What he believes, he believes," he added, of Mr Putin's belief that Russia did not meddle.
The two leaders had no formal bilateral talks during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec)
event, but meet in passing on three occasions. They spoke about the Syria crisis and the election
allegations, according to Mr Trump.
"... Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. ..."
"... Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary ..."
"... The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates. ..."
"... Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company. ..."
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile the "Russian dossier"
that triggered an FBI investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government,
according to a
report Tuesday by the Washington Post .
A Republican had contracted first with Fusion GPS, and Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS's work, the report says.
According to the Post :
Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community
Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October
2016, days before Election Day.
The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI
to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates.
Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene
in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company.
The revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were involved in procuring the salacious accusations
against Trump that fed their own later accusations of Russian interference in the election lends credence to those who, like Trump
himself, have regarded the Russia accusations as conspiracy theories.
Last week, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journalobserved :
The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics
from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm
that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.
On the heels of revelations that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton to approve a controversial
uranium deal, Democrats will have more questions to answer about possible collusion with Russia. The FBI, too, will face additional
scrutiny from Congress -- especially as it agreed to pay Steele after the election for additional research into Trump's potential
Russia ties.
One useful criteria to distinguish propaganda from honest analyst is to check if the
Intelligence assessment is called the product of "intelligence community" or group of handpicked
by Brennan and Clipper analysts from just three agencies (NSA, CIA, and FBI). This is very
similar to the test if some Western news out let call Magnitsky "a lawyer" or "an
accountant".
T he question why intelligence agencies used Steele dossier remain unanswered. and the answer
to this question if the key.
The forces against rapprochement with Russia are way too strong and include "foright policy
establishment", large part of Pentagon, defense contractors, intelligence agencies and their
contractors. Like any bureaucracies they want to expand much like cancel cells -- uncontrollably.
In this sense the intelligence agencies were dangerous for the US democracy from the moment of
their creation and remain so. The question that arise is " Is democracy compatible with the
existence of hypertrophied, almost out of control by "civic" government intelligence agency,
protected by secrecy of their operations? .
The main reason for their creation and existence in hypertrophied state was the existence of
the USSR. But in less twenty years from its creation CIA became dangerous for the US democracy
(in 1963 to be exact). And it probably remains dangerous now -- agency protected by secrecy and
having huge among of money in their disposal.
It is clear that the bet of intelligence agencies (at least NSA, CIA and FBI) in the last
lection was Hillary. Although it looks like FBI waved a bit. What they did to "help" her now
needs to be investigated using something like Church commission.
Notable quotes:
"... On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the "artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it." ..."
"... Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no sensations." ..."
"... On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a "leaker." ..."
"... Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference had not altered the electoral outcome ..."
President Trump said that President Vladimir Putin had assured him again Saturday that
Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign, and indicated that he believed
Putin's sincerity, drawing immediate criticism from lawmakers and former intelligence officials
who assessed that the meddling took place.
"I asked him again," Trump said after what he described as several brief, informal chats
with Putin in Danang, Vietnam, where they were attending a regional conference. "You can only
ask so many times . . . He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He
did not do what they are saying he did.
"I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it . . . I think he's
very insulted, if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters traveling with him aboard
Air Force One from Danang to Hanoi, on the ninth day of a long Asia tour. Trump voiced similar
conclusions after his only previous meeting with Putin, last July in Germany.
Trump's response to questions about his conversations with Putin was a jarring return
to the more insular preoccupations of Washington after more than a week of what has been a trip
filled with pageantry and pledges of mutual admiration, but few substantive outcomes, between
Trump and Asian leaders.
Later, in a news conference Sunday in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, Trump
appeared to be trying to parse his earlier remarks, saying, "What I said is that I believe
[Putin] believes that.
"As to whether I believe it or not," he said, "I'm with our [intelligence] agencies,
especially as currently constituted.
"I want to be able . . . to get along with Russia," Trump said. "I'm not
looking to stand and argue with somebody when there are reporters standing all around."
Reporters were not permitted inside the hall where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
conference was held in Danang.
... ... ...
On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the
"artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign
and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including
North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it."
Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely
nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a
campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what
they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no
sensations."
On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in
January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence
James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called
former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an
investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a
"leaker."
Clapper said in a statement that "the president was given clear and indisputable evidence
that Russia interfered in the election. His own DNI and CIA director have confirmed the finding
in the intelligence community assessment. The fact that he would take Putin at his word over
the intelligence community is unconscionable."
Brennan declined to comment.
In a statement, the CIA said that Director Mike Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by
the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment . . . with regard to Russian
election meddling." That position, it said, "has not changed." The assessment also concluded
that Russia had acted to promote Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Although
Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference
had not altered the electoral outcome , the assessment did not address that question.
Does this means that Trump now believes that this was Brenna's false flag operation? And why intelligence
agencies exploited Steele dossier against him?
Notable quotes:
"... "I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker." ..."
The president disparaged officials who worked for Barack Obama, saying former CIA chief John Brennan,
ex-director of national intelligence James Clapper and James Comey,
the FBI director he fired in May , were "political hacks".
"I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker."
He suggested he put more faith in Putin's word.
"Every time he sees me he says 'I didn't do that' and I really believe that when he tells me that,"
Trump said. "He really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn't do it. He is very, very strong
in the fact that he didn't do it. You have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he has
nothing to do with that."
"... as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. ..."
"... The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU ..."
"... As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court. ..."
"... Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right. ..."
Michael Kenny, November 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT • 300 Words
Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between
"Hillary paid for it" and "Hillary fabricated it" has already been made umpteen times. The
reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and
the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of
the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the
manipulation of the 2016 election.
A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in
Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked
to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the
logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to
let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters
were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn't willing to accept
that. Hence the current fight.
The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what
both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them
("spheres of influence"). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of
this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do
with dirty money.
Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert
attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's
entourage.
"Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away
from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage."
We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons' vicious hatred
towards Russians for the "loss" of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the
US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.
As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the
Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an
Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a
pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr.
D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his
fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has
been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.
Mike Whitney' paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your
Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.
Yeah, yeah. Poor, prosecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor,
prosecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.
Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political
Division.
Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite
frequently if they "fail"or are disloyal. And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at
minimum, when things don't go so well.
And yet and yet there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various
Russians all during the campaign.
Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James
Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee?
Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something
that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.
And they too were looking for "dirt" -on Clinton.
Well that isn't too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.
The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to
subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump
organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one
who so conspired.
Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign
nationals; if it were, I'd be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in
Europe.
Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if
it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.
This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with
Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn't interceding
with the Attorney General on your wife's behalf to head off an investigation in to her before
an election a crime known as 'obstruction of justice'? Riddle me that, Batman.
Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel
agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters.
Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.
This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic
cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo
the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine
...)
the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well
as with Saudi and Israeli companies
offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the
loads
With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also
came first from Libya by ship, then on
at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years
by
various
ships under U.S. contracts from
mostly east-European
countries.
---
With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of
the issue deserves more scrutiny:
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:
His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy);
The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)
The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring
the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most
aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy,
is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses
we're all just treading water here.
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war
crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But
should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two
weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6
and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot
by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort
to dump Trump.
A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The
connection between them is starting to unravel...
there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the
infamous Steele dossier.
there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
the issue is now in front of a British court.
Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin
years of the 90s.
Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor
Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles
C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled"
to the Ukraine
Thanks, b. Love the lede... 350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud
What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised
I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not
to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".
I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said
(of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."
This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine
that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle
about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over.
Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually
do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed
the dossier to Comey."
NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging
secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally
compromising material on the president-elect himself
Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British
courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case
to answer.
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked
airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody
that can damage him.
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in
early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions
that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding
McCain's mental state.
Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans
and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If
for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be
impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton
camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other
words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against
Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts
from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary
Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a
correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them
During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board
of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S.
election.
There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman
provided a screenshot
of some relevant parts:
Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017
Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that
Russia meddled last year
In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President
Putin in Hanoi:
Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?
A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells
me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.
Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?
A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and
you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the
DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the
server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And
you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean,
give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So
you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing
to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking
about Syria and the Ukraine.
Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta
and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack,
the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted
their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.
But
neither the Washington Post
nor the NY Times or
others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is
no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes
him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the
valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them.
We can't have that.
Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired
which headlines:
Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the
first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based
Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.
Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):
Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote
"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly
irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted
AFTER the election
"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative
AFTER the vote happened
Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by
lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with
Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political
hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran
and probably everyone else."
I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics
during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?
I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story,
fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about
Russian hacking...
This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason
to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks
who've been running things since 9/11
If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did
the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if
it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...
...they assumed the hackers were on their side
OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by
Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked
or not
Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak,
Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile,
who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be
sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC
lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for
the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.
Will
Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your
face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian.
..and it wouldn't be exaggeration
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered
how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the
deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic
intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered
'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big
chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say,
"he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...
whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into
parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes
or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate
him."
Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get
Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.
Enemy of my enemy anyone?
P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the
absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and
a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade.
I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite
his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away,
it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment
of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary,
DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves
for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding
frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.
When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You
chum the waters and wait
for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks
do that themselves.
I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible
hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not
understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate,
banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp'
sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night
of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably
much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.
Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched
herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.
Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources
who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit
scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen
as being built on nothing more than quicksand.
Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack',
is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early
as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing
his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered
no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants
at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the
public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm
And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern
providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT -
http://raymcgovern.com/
Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But
Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel
hacks put out.
These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin.
I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I
can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but
for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did
buy into the muh Russia crap.
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey
for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense
Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.
1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements
of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections
as a figure who could help them.
2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant
exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear
him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.
3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand
for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation
would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over
the Uranium sales with the Russians.
4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller
is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.
I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also
ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under
Trump.
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths
to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn
out well? "
Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on
the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking
like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations
about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters
and oligarchs like Mogilevich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse
to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their
plight...
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For
the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused
on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used
to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't
doing that?
I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But
I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough
by their herd leaders.
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason:
Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly
into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?
Hitler used
gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter
is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and
systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.
With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber.
The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's
life systems.
Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the
people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless
eaters on board.
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was
- the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to
keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in
heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it
mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.
"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF
A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.
"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad
and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels
House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not
that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the
dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting
and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive
amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion
imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation
that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.
The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming
people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter
of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the
last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it
by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the
machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and
now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing
a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease
agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
Charge in corruption is a standard instrument in regime change effort. Most widely used in in
color revolutions. So this is a pretty old way tested in xUSSR republics.
Everybody is against corruption, so it has become the new cool way to concentrate power in
dictatorial societies to engage in an anti-corruption drive, as Putin and Xi Jinping have done.
Actually corrupt people may well be arrested, but somehow included in the set of those arrested
are rivals of the leader who are conveniently disposed of.
likbez , November 10, 2017 8:53 pm
Barkley,
You should probably think in a wider framework of color revolution, not in the narrow
framework of (possibly inflated) corruption charges. This is about de-legitimization, not
about the corruption per se.
BTW the charge in corruption is a standard tool used in color revolutions. So it is far
from only "the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies". It is more of an
old way to induce "regime change".
It is perfectly applicable to political struggle in neoliberal societies as well as we see
now with Trump. Probably even more, as "greed is good" morale imperative implies. Also
provides opponents of Trump high moral ground to attach him and his entourage.
We can start analysis from Trump campaign against Hillary. If it would be more interesting
to analyze the current anti-Trump campaign from this angle. Especially recent Robert
Mueller's indictments. We can view then as a kind of attempt to "import" color revolution
methods of "regime change" into the USA in order to depose Trump.
The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but
in America itself to serve the powers that be. The 12 steps are:
1.Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers,
businessmen, reporters to the target country
2.Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to
fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and
ideals
3.Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc.
through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
4.If the target country has unions, bribe them
5.Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring
(1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar
Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran),
Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
6.Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human
rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an
excuse will do.
7.Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans
politicians and civilians involved
8.Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and
call upon all people with grievances to join
9.The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the
revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
10.When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government
will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people
11.Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause
the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by
the international community
12.Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will
face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel
uprising.
Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes. So
in China Xi Joinping has arrested about 1.4 million people in the CPC on anti-corruption
charges since he took power. No wonder nobody was voting against him at the recent party
congress.
Then we have Erdogan in Turkkey, who has arrested something like 70,000. Now a lot of
those have been busted for supposedly being part of the Gulenist copu attempt, but many have
been buseed for couurption. Yeah, color places do it, but these are the places with the
reallyi big numbers.
Oh, and the numbers arrested in Saudi Arabia apparently now exceed 200, and that is not
coloar revolution, nor is what has gone on in the US.
likbez , November 11, 2017 9:32 pm
"Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished
regimes."
Not true. After Ukrainian Maidan color revolution (2014) there were wide purges on
corruption charges of supporters of ousted President Yanukovich.
The current "Russiagate" color revolution against Trump recently started to concentrate on
corruption charges too (Mueller's first indictments). They are definitely not wide. But they send
a message to Trump and serve classic for color revolution de-legitimization purpose. In the context of the USA they probably do not actually need them to be wide as they can
be amplified 100 or 1000 times by anti-Trump MSM.
In both cases there is a strong support within the intelligence agencies of the actions
that can help to depose elected President (Brennan, Clapper, possibly Comey in case of the
USA). Along with the goal to froze the possibility of détente with Russia. Which was achieved
to the delight of all neocons.
There are also some discussions about the possibility that DNC hack was a false flag operation
in classic color revolutions fashion. See
While no doubt Bandar's very well-known role in Saudi "oil for arms"
programs which have come to define Saudi relations with the West over the past decades is a
trumped up and
"selective" charge (insofar as the highest levels of the state have overseen such shady
dealing) the al-Yamamah deal in particular - which goes back to the mid-1980's - has been an
historical embarrassment to both the UK and Saudi governments (BAE Systems was the prime
British contractor involved) for the astounding
level of fraudulent accounting exposed in UK courts.
Bandar bought an entire
village in the Cotswolds, a picturesque area of central England, and a 2,000-acre sporting
estate with part of the proceeds from kickbacks he received in the al-Yamamah arms deal, which
netted British manufacturer BAE £43bn ($56.5bn) in contracts for fighter aircraft.
As much as $30m (£15m) is alleged to have been paid into Bandar's dollar account at
Riggs Bank in Washington and the affair led to corruption probes in the US and UK, although the
case was dropped in the UK in 2006 after an intervention by then-prime minister Tony Blair.
But more likely is that Bandar has been caught up in this week's MBS dragnet for his
closeness to Western heads of state and foreign intelligence services. With MBS' aggressive
consolidation of power which could result in ascension to the throne at any moment, and with
fate of multiple princes and officials still unknown -- not the least of which is now ex-PM of
Lebanon Saad Hariri - a shroud of secrecy has resulted in myriad theories concerning what is
really happening behind the scenes.
Meanwhile news of Bandar's possible arrest and detention
hasn't spread very widely in international media reports as of this writing, but it will be
interesting to see the response in the West should the news be confirmed. Will Bandar's friends
in Washington and London go to bat for him? Or will Prince Bandar quietly recede into the
background of a permanent forced retirement from public life?
Most likely the latter will be the case. Regardless, for friends of the former powerful
Saudi intelligence director on either side of the Atlantic and within Saudi Arabia itself,
Bandar no doubt knows where all the skeletons are buried, and this alone makes him a worrisome,
volatile and unpredictable figure in the midst of a transfer of power.
Bandar was the Bush's inside man in Saudi........if he goes down, he might be willing to
tell all....about the crooked deals with the Bush Boys....lol......so much to gain, and yet
look at the price.......his life!
If what they're doing in Saudi Arabia is any indication, it might be a prelude to what's
going to happen here. There is no 'draining' the swamp and DJT knows it. They're going to have
to use dynamite and lots of it. There's a whole bunch of sealed indictments sitting at the US
District Court in DC and we know the Podesta's are just part of it. Imagine the huge snowflake
outcry if HRC was among them? Remember, they were screaming at the sky last night! HRC would
claim a coup and try to energize that group of idiots to rise up and it may take the National
Guard to quell them and jail them. From what I hear, that's exactly the plan...
Bandar was the piece of shit who lobbied the Bush administration to fly out the entire Bin
Laden family from the US without questioning them after 9/11.
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal
to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual
American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are
"accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited
freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A
few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.
[7] "
"Journalist Carl
Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church
Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists
whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church
Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
"... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the
Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump
colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington
Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public
about her Campaign's role in producing the report.
Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week
during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing
with the crisis.
"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information
operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to
reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.
The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the
notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes
had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state
propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little
background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":
" the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and
apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
warrants against members of Trump's campaign.
More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the
CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved .
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations
against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)
So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against
Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes,
the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA
warrant. This is from The Hill:
"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates
to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter
Page, CNN reports.
FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in
recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant
to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)
The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a
discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned
as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could
easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert
the democratic process.
The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but
abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it
politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in
the Washington Post:
"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's
political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI
a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to
several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians
had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email
accounts ..
Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy
were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories,
congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the
arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial
Trump dossier", Washington Post)
The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and
unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not
to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking
claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at
détente.
It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5
years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also
details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.
(All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on
corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed
direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.
Why?
It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt
inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story
that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had
created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".
Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was
further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by
CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."
The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping
up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded
to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read
all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations.
The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted
by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump", Washington Post)
What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to
propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War,
where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that
included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no
longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now
simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't
require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs
to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources
who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that
sums it up perfectly:
"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016
election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by
the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
Think about that for a minute .
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith
by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for
or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward
Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up
by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political
and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)
Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information
(Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their
intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the
obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information
can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played
by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see
signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.
As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes
were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could
be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more
information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are
they?
According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:
November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the
presidential campaign.
Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about
the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew
Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the
dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.
Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a
meeting at the latter's office.
Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech
executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej
Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.
Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on
some of the allegations made in the dossier.
Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that
reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)
John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent
Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?
Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has
expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a
mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia,
discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the
Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?
Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he
wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull
over. This is from the Business Insider:
Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI
director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack
Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.
Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report
they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to
reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed
the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with
reality", Business Insider)
This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was
released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and
collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in
the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but
there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.
On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian
hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This
same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan
and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier
cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence
Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was
used as the foundation for the ICA.
Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016,
Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his
conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no
proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant
participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been
withheld from the public?
Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the
powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have
grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?
Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and
boldly stated:
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed
contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump
campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able
to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a
reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials
or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that
Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using
the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a
presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what
is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians
But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its
probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from
then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)
It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was
not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm
facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil,
Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull
Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in
America.
So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of
Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent
state.
The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has explained to RT how an "efficient mechanism" of
information sharing with the US works.
No private lawyers are involved in the process, the agency official said, denying
allegations that it has played a part in any meeting between Donald Trump Jr. with lawyer
Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
"... An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show. ..."
"... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts. ..."
"... Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary. ..."
"... ...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? ..."
The Hill , early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement.
As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition
and/or ramifications.
An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former
Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.
The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified
information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.
The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before
and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was
grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts.
Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails
containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was "extremely
careless."
Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges
against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling
of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those
with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents
is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national
defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -- shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who
made the call to the change the language...
The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show
that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.
The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary
Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.
...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous
meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his
statement?
The mere presence of a private server that sent/received classified information is THE EVIDENCE that she intended to mishandle
classified information. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker what are these people smoking? That's like saying that just because you were
drunk and decided to drive that you didn't intend to drive drunk.
" ...early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement."
Evidence
that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be needed to fulfill the dreams of those
who imagine President Trump to be some sort of Manchurian Candidate.
The first charges
to be filed in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in last year's election
fit a typical pattern: a federal prosecutor in a big political case goes after small fry and
easy targets, slamming them for lying to investigators, even as evidence for the grand
conspiracy he's meant to be investigating remains virtually nonexistent.
The easy target in this instance is Paul
Manafort , who was briefly and rather unsuccessfully Donald Trump's campaign manager in the
stretch between his sealing the nomination and the Republican convention. Manafort's extensive
ties to disreputable foreign governments were already the subject of headlines over eighteen
months ago. In April 2016, when Manafort was a "newly installed senior campaign adviser,"
the Guardian noted that his clients amounted to "a who's who of authoritarian
leaders and scandal-plagued businessmen in Ukraine , Russia, the Philippines and more."
The whiff of corruption that swirls around Manafort was already with him long before he hooked
up with the Trump campaign. (Even so, it's
highly unusual for a someone to be charged, as Manafort has been, with failing to register
as a foreign agent: strict enforcement of the law would send a great many richly compensated
D.C. operators to jail.)
Manafort would be the most brazen spy in the history of humanity if his purpose in the Trump
campaign had been to coordinate with the Kremlin. We do live in extraordinary times, but
evidence that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be
needed to fulfill the dreams of those who imagine President Trump to be some sort of
Manchurian Candidate. Hiring Manafort was certainly reckless on the part of the Trump campaign,
and in a normal political season that would have been scandal enough. But neither Manafort's
obvious vices nor his questionable competence (the GOP convention came close to succumbing to
revolt) proved to be enough to derail Trump's locomotive to the White House.
The indictments against Manafort and his associate Rick Gates are fodder for partisan
sensationalism, but they do not appear to pose great peril to Trump. Pundits who looked more
closely at Mueller's first moves were more intrigued, however, by what they saw in the case of
the small fry: that is, the case of George Papadopoulous, a low-level foreign-policy adviser to
Trump's campaign. According to documents that Mueller had made public, Papadopoulous has
already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a certain "professor"
who claimed to have access through Russian sources to "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. (The professor
has been
identified in the press as the Maltese academic Josef Mifsud, based in Scotland at the
University of Sterling.)
Papadopoulos, just twenty-eight years old at the time, came to the Trump campaign after a
stint as an adviser to the Ben Carson campaign during the early contests last year. Trump was
in desperate need of staff -- indeed, people close to the campaign told me even months later,
in July 2016, that it was barely an organized campaign at all -- so Papadopoulos was taken on
and soon named among the campaign's foreign-policy advisers by Trump himself in a March 2016
interview with the Washington Post . Papadopoulos appeared in photos next to important
campaign figures such as Jeff Sessions, and he could have been an influential part of the
campaign himself. But he probably wasn't: the fact that he might appear in a photo with Jeff
Sessions says at least as much about the then Alabama senator's standing as it does about
Papadopoulos. The campaign was not a conventional campaign, and it had only the most shambolic
organizational chart.
Did Mifsud in fact have "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, in the form of pilfered emails obtained
by the Russians? This was the impression he apparently gave Papadopoulos, who passed the tale
to more senior campaign staff and was given permission to continue his contacts with Mifsud.
There was nothing illegal about this: what Papadopoulos has been charged with is not looking
into whether a Maltese academic and his Russian friends -- in particular a young woman
introduced to Papadopoulos as "Putin's niece" -- had Clinton or DNC email; rather, he has been
charged with lying to investigators. Watergate lore would have it that "it's not the crime,
it's the coverup" that brings down high officials implicated in wrongdoing. But in fact,
federal prosecutors and investigators routinely pounce on misstatements and minor falsehoods to
make cases that otherwise would go nowhere. That's standard operating procedure for special
counsels and special prosecutors. Going after the small fry and hitting them with harsh charges
for misstatements that may not otherwise seem terribly serious serves at least two purposes.
Yes, such charges put pressure on what may be the weakest links in a chain leading to proof of
corruption in high office. But they also keep a fishing expedition going by suggesting that if
you can catch a few minnows, maybe you can land Moby-Dick, too. Prosecutors are unavoidably
political figures, and high-stakes investigations of public officials, above all the president,
inevitably have the character of PR campaigns as much as legal proceedings.
Everything we know so far suggests not a passionate love affair between the Trump campaign
and the Kremlin but a series of awkward first dates between amateurs whose espionage
credentials would make Boris and Natasha look like James Jesus Angleton. The Russians did not
lack for motive to screw with America's election and to vex Hillary Clinton in particular. But
nothing indicates that they had effective lines of communication (let alone control) into the
upper echelons of the Trump campaign, to the extent that the Trump campaign was even organized
enough to have echelons. There's something paradoxical in the same pundits who bemoan Donald
Trump's absolute unpredictability and incorrigibility as president also believing that the
Trump campaign and the Kremlin could work together smoothly to subvert American democracy. The
Trump campaign couldn't even work together smoothly with itself, which is one thing Paul
Manafort can prove. Daniel McCarthy is editor at large of The American
Conservative
Talking heads act like Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is fair,
impartial and unbiased. But the facts are a wee bit different ... Failure to Aggressively
Prosecute the BCCI Scandal
The B.C.C.I. scandal involves the laundering of drug money, the illicit financing of
terrorism and of arms to Iraq, the easy purchase of respectability and the corruption of the
world banking system.
For more than a decade, the biggest banking swindle in history worked beautifully. Between
$5 billion and $15 billion was bilked from governments and individual depositors to be put to
the most evil of purposes -- while lawmen and regulators slept.
Now the fight among investigators is coming out into the open. Manhattan District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau, who gave impetus to long-contained probes, told a Senate subcommittee headed
by Senator John Kerry that he is getting no cooperation from the Thornburgh Justice
Department.
Justice's Criminal Division chief, Robert Mueller, tells me he will have a hatchet-burying
session with the independent-minded D.A. next week, and vehemently denies having told British
intelligence to stop cooperating with the Manhattan grand jury.
Mueller's handling of the BCCI scandal as the point man for the Justice Department was
widely criticized. As noted by a Senate report written by Senators
Kerry and Brown:
Over the past two years, the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has been criticized in
numerous editorials in major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington
Post, and the New York Times, reflecting similar criticism on the part of several Congressmen,
including the chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Kerry; the chief Customs undercover officer
who handled the BCCI drug-money laundering sting, Robert Mazur; his superior at Customs,
Commissioner William von Raab; New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; former Senate
investigator Jack Blum, and, within the Justice Department itself, the former U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen.
Typical editorials criticized Justice's prosecution of BCCI as "sluggish," "conspicuously
slow," "inattentive," and "lethargic." Several editorials noted that there had been "poor
cooperation" by Justice with other agencies. One stated that "the Justice Department seems to
have been holding up information that should have been passed on" to regulators and others.
Another that "the Justice Department's secretive conduct in dealing with BCCI requires a better
explanation than any so far offered.
***
Under Assistant Attorney General Mueller, the Department assigned nearly three dozen
attorneys to the case. During 1992, the Department brought several indictments, which remained
narrower, less detailed and, at times, seemingly in response to the efforts of District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau of New York, the Federal Reserve, or both
***
Suddenly, on August 22, Dennis Saylor, chief assistant to Assistant Attorney General
Mueller, called Lehtinen and, according to the US Attorney, "indicated to me that I was
directed not to return the indictment."
While the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has received substantial criticism, the
office of Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York, has generally received credit for
breaking open the BCCI investigation.
***
In going after BCCI, Morgenthau's office quickly found that in addition to fighting off the
bank, it would receive resistance from almost every other institution or entity connected to
BCCI , including at various times, BCCI's multitude of prominent and politically well-connected
lawyers, BCCI's accountants, BCCI's shareholders, the Bank of England, the British Serious
Fraud Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice
Squashing Warning Signs that May Have
Stopped 9/11
Robert Mueller first hit my radar ... just months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the
World Trade Center.
***
I came to meet and later represent FBI Special Agents Robert Wright and John Vincent, of the
agency's Chicago Counter-Terrorism Field Office. During our meeting, both Special Agents Wright
and Vincent revealed to me that they had been conducting a counterterrorism investigation of
Saudi money laundering into and in the United States, and they both believed that a massive
terrorist attack was imminent.
In the course of this investigation, both special agents had asked a fellow FBI agent who
was undercover, one of Muslim descent, to be wired to turn up further evidence of this
terrorist operation. The Muslim agent refused, indignantly telling both Wright and Vincent that
Muslims don't spy and rat on other Muslims. In shock, my soon-to-be clients reported this to
their supervisors at the FBI, but no action was taken. To make matters worse, Wright's and
Vincent's FBI supervisors quashed their investigation. They both believed that the order to
kill the investigation came from the highest reaches of the FBI, and, upset it not outraged by
this cover-up, Wright then decided to write a book detailing this breach of FBI honor.
The only way I could explain this cover-up was that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller was
sensitive to the ties between the family of President George W. Bush and the Saudi royal
family.
***
Director Mueller, along with his "yes men" supervisors at the agency, not only quashed my
clients' investigation and ignored the disloyalty of the Muslim undercover agent, but then
missed the warning signs leading up to September 11 – the biggest intelligence failure in
American history, even surpassing Pearl Harbor.
But shamelessly, despite this historic intelligence failure and the World Trade Center
terrorist attacks that ensued, Mueller later led an effort to drum both Special Agents Wright
and Vincent out of the FBI, in part by attempting to remove their security clearances, as a
"reward" for their candor.
The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no
warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and
intelligence coming in.
Mueller was one of the people who dropped the ball and let 9/11 happen.
Allowing
Escape of Saudi Persons Connected to Bin Laden
Right after 9/11, American airspace was closed down. Yet Mueller was one of the people who
allowed relatives of Bin Laden
and other persons of interest fly back to Saudi Arabia.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000
immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong
time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially
P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to
supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently,
some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the
Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so
misled everyone after 9/11.
In addition, Rowley
says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence
Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like.
The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11
confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating
witnesses (and see
this ).
Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI
informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for
the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a
room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the
FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location. See this and
this .
Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that
Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections
between Russia and the Trump campaign) made "the strongest objections" to Jacobson and his
colleagues visiting San Diego.
Graham and his team defied Mueller's efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered
that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and
damning details
***
Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by
a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location 'for his own
safety.'
Graham also wrote
that the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the
American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers."
And Kristen Breitweiser - one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government
to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks - points out :
Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi
evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they
succeeded in their effort.
When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other
directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the
intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they
actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta,
had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept
quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the
time, James Comey.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own
agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such
torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked
to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
Anthrax
Frame-Up
Mueller also presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was
"flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator
called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation
in the anthrax case."
The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says the
whole thing was a sham . He says
that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were
"politically motivated communication embargoes from FBI Headquarters".
The FBI's anthrax investigation head said
that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, he filed a whistleblower report of
mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section
2303, which noted:
(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent
efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence
Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI
crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt
. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which
were replete with material omissions
In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an
innocent man (and
see this ).
Unsure If Government Can Assassinate U.S. Citizens Living On U.S.
Soil
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley
commented at the time:
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his
responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very
least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy:
"Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Crippled Investigations of
Financial Fraud ... Helping to Allow the Great Recession
In a 2013 piece entitled " Mueller: I Crippled FBI Effort v. White-Collar Crime ", the
country's top white collar crime expert, William Black – who put over 1,000 top S&L
executives in jail for fraud, and is a professor of law and economics at the University of
Missouri - wrote
:
The FBI never developed "an intelligence operation" "to analyze threats" of even epidemic
fraud.
***
White-collar crime investigations and prosecutions are massive money makers that reduce the
deficit, but Mueller , Holder, and Obama refuse to make these points and refuse to prosecute
the elite bank fraudsters. On substantive and political grounds their actions are either
inexplicable or all too explicable and support my readers' belief that the FBI leadership no
longer wants to investigate and prosecute the elite bank frauds.
After the Great Depression, the government cracked down on Wall Street fraud . But
Mueller and other Bush and Obama administration officials let it slide
(There are a lot of people more responsible for the Great Recession - and for lack of
reform afterwards - than Mueller. For example, Mueller's boss (the FBI is a part of the
Department of Justice) made it more or less
official policy not to prosecute financial fraud. But this is another example of
Mueller dropping the ball.
NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been
collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.
On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary
Committee:
We have put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a
database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not
require an individualized search
Remember, the FBI - unlike the CIA - deals with internal matters within the borders of
the United States.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the
phone fcompanies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a
conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she
tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security
investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not
necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help
lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that
out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is
incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak
whether we know it or like it or not ."
The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and
she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added
expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands
of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
"terrorism."
Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful
want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak
out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he
didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
I'm still pissed at how Sessions has handled this since taking the AG spot. What this
all comes to is Jeff Sessions is either
1) a fucking idiot or
2) joined the Trump train initially to sabatoge Trump, or
3) was bought off or blackmailed after Trump named him AG.
Sessions did not serve this country by recusing himself and paving the way for Mueller
to run a black ops on the Trump administration. Plus, Sessions just looks like a fucking
wimp.
Maybe Trump has skeletons, but Russia is not one of them. Trump would do well to fire
Sessions and the next 50 ranking FBI/Justice people and start over.
Wow. I hear he also invented cancer and ebola, personally raped all the Sabine women,
and tipped Atlantis into the sea. He personally invaded Iraq, tortured civilians, and
flew the Ben Laden family home from the States after 9-11 on his private jet (which he
stole from an orphanage for abused white christians).
Poor Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump. Powerless against such an evil man as Mueller. I
guess this was all secret information up until now or Trump would have raised these
points when Mueller was appointed special counsel.
Mueller was a soldier in Vietnam Nam in combat for a few months only though fighting
bravely for those few months; however he was soon removed from combat and given a desk
job as personal aide to a General Jones, a brother of the later Obama national security
advisor.
Note that Mueller was FBI Director for both Obama and Bush. Comey took over FBI AFTER
the Benghazi scandal.
Cheers, thats pretty much what I gleaned from Wiki. Its a rare honour indicating
exceptional courage so I wondered if there was a good story behind it.
Wiki also mentions him presiding over the (ultimately controversial) conviction of
Abdelbaset al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing - not sure if that can be blamed on the
FBI or the all too easily led Scotch though.
The agencies that are supposed to represent the people and enforce the law have
morphed into political tools for the Democrats. How are you going to get an agency like
the FBI to investigate the Clintons when they are in on the scam?
A score of senior and rank and file agents should have gone to prison for burning all
those women and children to death in Waco. The Clinton Administration gave those agents a
pass, and in the process the Clintons purchased the undying support of the agency. When
the very tool you would use to bring down a criminal enterprise has been coopted by that
enterprise, you better tread softly.
I am beginning to understand that we are at a tipping point. People are beginning to
grasp the import of agency lies about the assassination of President Kennedy. It is clear
now that the lies were not told to protect the public.
They were told so that the coconspirators could perfect their coup. Once the coup was
completed successive generations of politicians were given the message. That message was
simple. We the shadow government can kill anybody we choose. Look what we did to Kennedy.
You either toe the line or you will send in the cleaners. Those that would not kao tau to
shadow rulers got to meet their John Hinckley or died under suspicious circumstances in
some West Texas ranch.
( Doesn't matter the Criminal alphabet Agencies, the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA have decades & Trillions invested over the decades
planting "Agent Smiths" in all of them Pentagram MIC included.)
People are beginning to understand that they have been herded by acts of terrorism
conducted by their own state. The scenario of the lone shooter with spectacular
marksmanship and fantastic kill rates has lost its credibility. Just another in a lone,
long line of "book depository"False Flags.
Trump full well understands that he is in mortal combat with a sinister and entrenched
oligarchy. This is not their first rodeo and they are extremely dangerous. He has to be
sure of his footing before he takes his next step. By the grace of God, he may just very
well be able to pull back the curtain and expose these monsters.
If they manage to kill him, buckle up because any agency with federal in its title
will have lost any claim to legitimacy. The oligarchs tried to steal the election and
that failed. If they steal the election by killing the President, what follows next is a
turkey shoot.
Dec. 10, 2015: Flynn dines with Vladimir Putin at RT gala in Moscow
Flynn accepts $33,750 to speak about U.S. foreign policy at a conference in Moscow,
where he also sat beside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala for the
Kremlin-influenced RT (formerly Russia Today). (
Politico ,
Wall Street Journal
But don't forget the collusion with the Whitey Bulger Gang, allowing Bulger to get
away with his crimes, while prosecuting four innocent men instead, who were later
exonerated and court awarded $105 million from the Feds! (When Mueller was acting US
Attorney in Boston.)
Also, there's that background on Mueller regarding his being the grandnephew of
Richard Bissell (by marriage), fired deputy director of the CIA under JFK. And his family
fortune is connected to the Rockefellers (family name: Truesdale).
Lotsa stuff about Mueller, lotsa stuff . . .
(And when they were involved in exonerating those four innocent males sent to the
penitentiary, Mueller wrote letters urging them to continue to keep them
incarcerated!)
Well, that proved to be more of the government's deceit towards the people today, when
Redoubt News was the only credential-carrying news source that was denied entry as media.
Redoubt News was barred from the official priority media seating, however, all other
alternative media outlets were allowed entry.
~~~~
They can refuse to recognize Redoubt News, but we are going to keep reporting what
happens in the courtroom.
30-40 years ago, and beyond....to live past 70 was an event. Modern medicine is
keeping these fucks alive into their 80s+ 90s...and it's too much. Look at the Supreme
Court...Congress, the Fed... These fucks are way, way too entrenched. There seriously
needs to be term limits or an expiration date. Everywhere I look...it's senile old,
entrenched fucks running the cabal.
Am I wrong?
Quite literally...what is keeping Hillary, McCain, Pelosi, Ginsberg, et al..alive?
Mueller has steadfastly tried to ignore or downplay (through carefully worded leaks)
the 2010 bribery investigation surrounding the Uranium One deal which Mueller oversaw as
the then FBI Director with Rod Rosenstein as the US Attorney supervising the
investigation. Then in 2017 Rosenstein, now the Deputy Attorney General and acting
Attorney General for the Russia investigations, appoints Mueller as Special Counsel over
the investigation. ( Recall that Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the
Russian investigation over having had conversations at a dinner reception and in a Senate
office meeting with the Russian ambassador when he was a senior member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.) Also curious is that Mueller's appointment by Rosenstein came
on the heels of Mueller's failed attempt to be rehired as the FBI chief following
Rosenstein's review of Comey's employment and Rosenstein's recommendation that Comey be
fired.
Now that Muller is handing out indictments it's time to try and trash him. If he had
nothing you would just be laughing at him. It's all starting to come down for Trump now.
Bitch on little Trumpsters.
Dream on, DNC troll. Donny let Mueller investigate because he knows there is nothing
to find, and nothing has been found. But investigate hundreds of political operatives and
some dirt can always be found on a few of them. The dems are more pathetic than I
realized if they think there is any meat on the bare bones Mueller tossed them.
With all due respect George Washington, Aren't you supposed to be the American
Standard for Truth telling. The 911 BS in your article is a bold face lie. The Chicago
agents were on a classic "Agency/Company" diversionary trail which was intentionally used
as part of the 911 Commission's head fake to explain how the official version accounted
for the lost opportunities to prevent the licensed goat herders from hijacking 4
commercial jets and flying them far beyond the limits they were engineered, let alone all
the Laws of Physic's that were suspended on 911. Stay out of our cherry orchid. All the
same...Fuck Mueller..he is as Anti-American as our first Alien/Muslim President.
I always enjoy when someone criticizes me for not hitting the truth regarding 9/11
hard enough!
As I've explained for 10 years, I know 9/11 was an inside job. I write some posts
saying that, and others for different audiences criticizing the government's negligence
in letting 9/11 happen.
They are not inconsistent positions ... because there are multiple layers to the
onion. Some responsible only knew one little part, not the big picture. Others really
were just negligent. Some knew exactly what was going down.
It's not either or ... it's both.
Does that make sense?
Moreover, it's not inside job by rogue elements of US gov/intelligence/defense
contractors versus Saudis and/or perhaps Israelis.
I've said for 10 years that one might have subcontracted parts to the other.
And believe it or not, he was around when Fast & Furious got cranked up, before
the reins of the Bureau of Matters (lol) got handed over to Comey.
"In a lengthy
letter directed to FBI Director Robert Mueller , Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) pointed to inconsistencies in reports of how many weapons and
suspects were involved, as well as their current whereabouts. The letter refers to
evidence indicating there may have been five suspects in the group that shot Brian Terry,
and as
many as five rifles ."
George missed the Mueller/Iraq War money shot. Here's a 24 second video that tells us
a lot about how poorly Mueller has "investigated" in the past. He wasn't interested in
the truth back then:
The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan
in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In
which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled
by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working
on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence
reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the
Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely
reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the
British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than
truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July
of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served
as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the
White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats'
go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator,
as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion
to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again
with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an
exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep
inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and
discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from
this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured
Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton,
and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign
governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note,
by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain
about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made
up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop
(cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe
that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the
past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow
them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it
past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election.
It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied
on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration
covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's
pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others
working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a
"bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research
on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.
Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation
headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian
government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on
purported money laundering. On Monday,
indictments were filed against
former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.
But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier
compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was
bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant
claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence
sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress
and a special prosecutor.
The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of
intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting
contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are
real
concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via
liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources
were also utilized by Steele.
According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel
to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself,"
Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played
absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was
released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to
Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."
Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and
provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any
way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need
to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.
An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less
than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community
in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called
Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017
Russian ICA.
Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime.
It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company
that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence,
and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the
Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump
was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to
a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion
GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting
opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end
of the election cycle.
Perkins Coie is also home to Michael
Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration
of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach,
and, on May 4, 2016,
he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike,
for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence
of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the
FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.
When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and,
again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach
through
an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report
detailing the intrusion, ominously named
"Bears in the Midst."
This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet
of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with
a spokesperson from either
the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.
It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond
the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving
into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person
Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele
Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion
GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already
paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the
part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm
assets require the approval of either the
management or executive committee
of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).
But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports"
cobbled together from what
Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes
to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was
assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts
normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.
The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its
explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive
charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report
alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and
directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored
and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."
These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22,
when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal
deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled
to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention
when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors,"
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald
Trump."
If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton
campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the
2016 Aspen
Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack
of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready
to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration,
Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence
community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.
According to the
Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the
Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit
the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this
briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told
the New York Times
. The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives
-- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate
of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or
was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of
the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution,
shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community.
Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that
was used.
The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted
Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C,"
a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan
cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief
U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually
mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been
influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party
behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions
set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis
of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August
2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent"
then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and
allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion
with Nazi U-boat commanders.
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to
such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence
community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding
with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George
Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political
actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian
actors who would like to undermine Putin.
To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016
US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the
US election is quite another. "
This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute
the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia,
Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism
can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.
In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no
question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and
now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling.
Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is
made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians,
full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double
standard?
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing
the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made
use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions
for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.
Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing
about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once
enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium
One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.
November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty
laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.
So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of
doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the
Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed
Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.
But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were
complicit in the misdeeds.
We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the
Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.
We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.
We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to
believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.
What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is
of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying
Russians for smear documents! America First!
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump.
Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others
have all lied.
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would
allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things
to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him
in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?
Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely
smeared the Trump team?
Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both
received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.
Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier
relied on collaboration with Russian officials.
Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller,
participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security
violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw
the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and
stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.
In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured
email server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously
wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama
administration covering up lawlessness.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government
emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial
relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate
that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well
so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and
put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:
"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."
In the same interview:
"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign,
reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
Did everybody catch that?
In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic
political opponent.
But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent.
I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in
its entire 10-year existence.
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email
server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something
seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign
government, you have some screws lose.
Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal
offence.
The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC ,
and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.
Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side
can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that
the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power
and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?
But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing
that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is
going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"
If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client
privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press,
Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks
maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.
Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.
The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation,
allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that
makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the
claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this
blighted nation for the next four years.
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt
to accuse one and defend the other is futile."
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"
I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental.
Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's
pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in
the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket.
Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed
cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real
or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?
In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal
commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.
BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs
a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.
It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship
to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia
and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky
myth, reports Robert Parry.
As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident
media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary
that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.
The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology
companies – under intense political pressure – to
unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers"
(with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then
stigmatize
that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using
major search engines.
For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but
the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively
the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient
truth.
Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European
publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of
the Magnitsky story.
The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei
Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance
found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.
However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over
the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels
and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed
to see the documentary.
Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William
Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials.
For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about
how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.
Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals
and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got
rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.
The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence
anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.
So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets
the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization
of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means
necessary.
This summer, Browder
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging
the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent
Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.
Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone
who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."
Magnitsky and Russia-gate
The Magnitsky controversy now has
merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled
to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump
campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.
Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's
account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, "
A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's
memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the
prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's
honesty.
Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition
of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's
accountants implicated in the tax fraud.
While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream
media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical
neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant
caught up in the scheme.
The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets –
also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should
anyone believe his other self-serving claims?
As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in
a recent article on
the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court
deposition in a related criminal case.
In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder
said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered:
"No."
Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer,"
all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.
The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation
of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with
$230 million in refunded taxes.
Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood,
the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits
the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods
so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they
get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting
the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.
Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and
make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming
evidence of his deceptions.
Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see
the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees.
We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass
media and elections.
Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere
that is full of "Russian trolls".
orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm
Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing
$75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously.
Begin here
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based
hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment
operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally
a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped
in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires
a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis.
Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through
Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era
St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz,
the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian
Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a
mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main
backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial
museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much
more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance
of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying
arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian
Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She
became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most
of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor
Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs.
During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian
journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky,
Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz
newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs
at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent
industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs
of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship,
or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as
$10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands
of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories
of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World
War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the
applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud
which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays
out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment
that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan
Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars
of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that
for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps
more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm
William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights
activist".
Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs:
themselves.
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish
corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am
Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist
Browder!
This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered
as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding
Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who
had not suffered in the Holocaust."
Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1.
If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.
Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although
I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.
Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.
United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling
that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.
Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does
not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England
and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.
In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York
because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."
Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because
there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the
threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.
The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors
in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.
Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against
him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary
source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.
Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!
Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in
congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts
in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.
Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant
They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.
@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed.
Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and
that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians
that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft
,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the
forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of
the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi
judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes
Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern
Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.
Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am
Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits
from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis
and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his
incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan
P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass
themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."
In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached,
Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.
Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and
is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all
that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid
goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death.
Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.
Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of
justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and
disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell
with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".
Exceptional my ***!
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am
and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail.
Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA
Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am
There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part
of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the
people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain
– when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse?
I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about
the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes
against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both
the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down
a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan
and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.
You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?
Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am
It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known
zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison
manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.
US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different
matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take
bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will
repeal the act.
Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does
a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has
banned the book but eBay has it, for now.
Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials?
Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow
the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't
we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last
year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?
This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and
Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is
a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America
should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion,
and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am
Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's
, was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa
did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran.
Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak
hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't
Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am
Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this
moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina,
but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of
this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil
rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning
to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political
parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place
some eighty years ago.
So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little
while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual,
whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just
go to Holland. Joe
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Tina-
I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country.
I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign
troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange
that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries'
citizens.
Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US
shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the
Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge
Russia (which they still want to do).
Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex,
please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in
this age of suppressed truth?
When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets
seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read
works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events
and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then
you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded
by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand
it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be
saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?)
succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and
awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.
anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am
algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant
but essential medicine.
In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school.
She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was
not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President
, cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin
claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and
jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public
funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !
Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am
Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't
either.
The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish
community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family
in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008,
Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in
Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks.
In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."
I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify
as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline
of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To
them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky
was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine
how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary
now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied,
the other you are force fed in Amerika.
David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful
comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek
to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims,
and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their
machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.
We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys
and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy
in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running
drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing
a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless
of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque
ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then
tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable
to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts
to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power
structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of
the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media
in Europe by the CIA
Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower
case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.
Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am
This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among
the first hits on google. (archive org.)
I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).
I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every
day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time
Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with
lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to
dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.
Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei
Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky
controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.
Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm
For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei
Nekrasov.
Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.
Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as
"Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you
make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent
comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.
From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."
I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when
the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.
ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to
protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles
on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest?
Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown?
Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in
the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat
is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where
to start. Have you any suggestions?
There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries.
A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers
oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything.
The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers.
The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control
what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative.
For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive
and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against
far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.
"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice,
was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm
This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:
From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's
lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):
Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:
Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never
went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.
There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like
a high school punk contrived it.
Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm
The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked
shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage,
and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control
the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find
the truth. Thank you very much for your work.
j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm
Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge
of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,
There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this
detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the
knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump
campaign,
be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied
Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious,
scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in
"violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being
out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above
All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign
was similar to the
German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General
John Kelly and
concluded :
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would
look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they
haven't served in the military . ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to
do . ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but
theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White
House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian
adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological
pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor
General McMaster, had won. I
stated :
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office.
An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the
White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through
the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies
to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to
them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be
told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress
any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly
criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a
phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar
FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a
fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not
lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's
unjustified attack she
responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that
-- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's
something highly inappropriate
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
... ... ...
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do
they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military
golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000
strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he
commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had
maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees'
peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber
bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees,
consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States
Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the
competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he
promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely
waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will
rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a
get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent
incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis
set
(vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is -
is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there ,
by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to
explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa --
in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers;
teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it
learn that from committing mass atrocities in about
each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a
dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever
the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be
declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be
blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933
"Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will
develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The
more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards
China/Russia and other currencies.
Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over
simplifies the issue.
Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take
the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not
a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained
his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the
reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."
That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called
'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an
application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean
that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms
by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his
'asymmetric' style.
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is
as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep
their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an
oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the
alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up
the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart;
reality is slapping you in the face.
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha
Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so
strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction,
which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to
corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes
most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to
meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.
What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in
agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he
failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last
decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian
Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a
Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success
of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian
refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can
they conjure a war out of this?
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in
Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.
When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army
units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control
northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they
fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)
together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the
area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...
I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US
Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total
dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin,
Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and
development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking
woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development.
The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments
and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.
There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military
intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think
anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the
Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or
join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero
Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point
where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within:
Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something
viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees
Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game
promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.
The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being
forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses.
And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to
spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with
the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.
There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of
the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related
sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.
funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the
initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its
pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical
land route as well.
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to
be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top
military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a
truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the
"translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more
effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War
propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down
to the Buzzfeed crowd.
We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA
ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would
people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta
accomplished in Afghanistan:
"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am
anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am
very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US
policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of
extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch,
under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan
military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come
Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that
mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America
in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of
the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view
it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in
Afghanistan?
"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the
United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We
would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody
would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs
of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"
I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only
knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and
indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as
another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful
one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.
LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by
Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while
the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had
been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can
get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can
muster.
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After
Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right
to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in
control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump,
who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation
and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the
information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the
blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear
arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no
longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of
billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority
to launch our nuclear arsenal."
Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military,
in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is
disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to
whether the President could be bypassed in the process.
Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear
strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is
also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump
has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of
military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of
supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and
support."
Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.
. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our
country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform
that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and
pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object
of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in
reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol
of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol
of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the
power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The
Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the
same outcome.)""
I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the
police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few
notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.
I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist
ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against
enemies foreign and domestic.
The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"
This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 :
The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger
Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French
Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went
wrong!
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda
she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda,
especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces.
Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a
war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and
they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage
for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military
will only ever face another Vietnam.
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes:
"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that
I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of
a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to
three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida
congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national
joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out
repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the
empire." Bullshit.
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump
says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über
Alles" campaign of 1933."
This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII
started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe
and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany
was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the
slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have
us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out
for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it
Hitler's "MAGA".
The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for
Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who
now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a
nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is
evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war
which is also being waged within the US government.
This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is
run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident,
but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their
own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC
contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of
the operation.
Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter
shooting up targets with a SAW-249.
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when
there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the
minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump
is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than
a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever.
Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better
formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.
The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public
trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you
stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise -
imagine being this a-hole's son?
These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the
same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards,
ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists,
who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system
turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.
As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people,
not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are
obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues
such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades
and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what
makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable.
The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are
expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is
HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose
themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found
out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the
Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour
is.
The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves
about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome
war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the
occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked.
As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of
naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the
cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them,
while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history,
disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military
casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire,
syphilis or fragging of their own.
The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are
cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption
(plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a
putrid slime from there.
He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can
have anything but contempt for them.
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military
junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.
One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
from October 12, 2017:
Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short
summary:
Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday
that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad
-- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."
"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and
decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such
as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a
dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as
thin as Donald Trump's skin."
The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the
president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying
to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal.
An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since
Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks
are, they fit into that mode.
Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to
run for office and win that office.
They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a
rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder,
war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have
that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.
Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order
to save it" attempts.
MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at
others.
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom
he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .
The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some
prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan &
Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had
enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo)
prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and
tortured.
None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it
was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a
13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.
Meanwhile the
Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and
prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they
supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes,
Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in
the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism,
and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in
the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient
class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides
familial, or close, etc.)
Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is
personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc.
That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the
double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.
.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the
media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are
politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides
of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong,
they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond
soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and
has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.
To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.
First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump
why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and
the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?
Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted
with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.
Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never
fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish
bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.
@J 49 The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do,
not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA
would be out of power?
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across
Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better
soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights
These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news
reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they
were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were
not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism
applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be
such a thing).
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having
supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all
bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the
US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In
the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with
ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and
allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS,
similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with
ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia,
clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend
insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget
(again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil,
North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.
Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY
positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John
Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a
walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.
Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try
to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to
his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and
of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops
into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of
the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama.
Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable
specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the
military. Heroes of convenience.
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all
about.
1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures"
like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold
War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.
2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first"
vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:
>> replaced/retired many military officers;
>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind")
;
>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional
nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.
The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support
further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has
changed the calculus.
The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different
type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to
foreign influence.
So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and
the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office.
He surrendered his top people.
Saker says it was lack of character.
I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you
acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced
him out of the WH.
Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even
with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep
State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.
He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC
justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with
Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.
There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.
Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin
and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of
opportunity, though it looks bleak.
One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these
terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling
it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.
SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the
service industry being sold as the "solution".
The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over
here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and
the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has
its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels
me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of
this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned
ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the
members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals,
not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie
to Congress.
The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in
their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering
a nation.
In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment)
of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now
dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are
alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections
of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death.
Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren
Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his
reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.
One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's
not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than
Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something
that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on
the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist
the urge to pop off on twitter.
Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult.
Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just
say I'm talking about perception.
Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle
to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts.
Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.
Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or
NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold
reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the
public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his
brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a
positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and
her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The
true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged
that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking
for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.
"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the
military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the
supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald
Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major
split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant
figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and
traitors is absurd.
Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise
hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The
number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the
Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly
and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik
faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).
Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The
various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The
actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late
1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs
(then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many
areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising
hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external
economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in
power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S.
continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive
another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S.
does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to
try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel"
whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey.
Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless
disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.
Muller just sinks credibility of the US government to a new low exposing the internal fight
between CIA/FBI and Pentagon for the control of the government. All this dirt digging is so
highly selective, that the whole purpose if his investigation can be defined as "Discrediting of
the US government and its institutions". The role of FBI now (notwisting nik in
twitter is very similar to the role of CIA in JFK assassination: suspected kingmaker, which tried
to control Trump campaign and was ready top pay Steele. Excluding DNC officiels form probe mean
selective search for truth, which is a search for lies.
There are also serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility. So far he emerges as a
young, reckless and clueless political huckster. And where was General Flynt with his
experience intelligence operations. He should understand that all Trump operation is under the
microaope of Obmam-fireldly officiels in the administration including such a powerful figure as
Brennan.
Also why the heck we have Papadopoulos as a source, when we have NSA and clear evidence that
key Trump officials were all wiretapped.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic fields. ..."
"... In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a "laughingstock." ..."
"... The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial point. ..."
"... At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets. ..."
"... But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking gun" of Russia-gate. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The involvement had been substantial. Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity ever? ..."
"... Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the Pentagon). ..."
"... No, I believe the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened. ..."
"... In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation, but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant." You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime. ..."
"... There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA. ..."
"... The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution. ..."
"... Murder of Seth Rich? Podesta brothers popping up at each step of the investigation as the lobbyists "colluding" with both Russia and Ukraine? Clinton Foundation and the lethal weaponry sales to Saudis? The CIA-arranged delivery of weapons to ISIS on Clinton's watch? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726 The Uranium deal with Russia? – Including the $500.000 "speech fee" for the promiscuous Bill – remember Lolita Island, Dershowitz, and Epstein? ..."
"... The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails – who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it? ..."
"... It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice – whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries. ..."
"... We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many citizens like yourself. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources. ..."
"... The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts". ..."
"... Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). ..."
"... Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about? ..."
Exclusive: The U.S. mainstream media finally has its "smoking gun" on Russia-gate --
incriminating information from a junior Trump campaign adviser -- but a closer look reveals
serious problems with the "evidence," writes Robert Parry.
Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump with
the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the
disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the FBI.
While longtime Republican fixer Paul Manafort, who helped guide Trump's campaign to the GOP
nomination in summer 2016, was the big name in the news on Monday, the mainstream media focused
more on court documents related to George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims
to have heard about Russia possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the
Internet, mostly via WikiLeaks.
While that would seem to bolster the Russia-gate narrative – that Russian intelligence
"hacked" Democratic emails and President Vladimir Putin ordered the emails be made public to
undermine Clinton's campaign – the evidentiary thread that runs through Papadopoulos's
account remains tenuous.
That's in part because his credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea for
lying to the FBI and by the fact that he now has a motive to provide something the prosecutors
might want in exchange for leniency. Plus, there is the hearsay and contested quality of
Papadopoulos's supposed information, some of which already has turned out to be false.
According to the court documents, Papadopoulos got to know a professor of international
relations who claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," with
the professor identified in press reports as Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated
with the University of Stirling in Scotland.
The first contact supposedly occurred in mid-March 2016 in Italy, with a second meeting in
London on March 24 when the professor purportedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman
whom the young campaign aide believed to be Putin's niece, an assertion that Mueller's
investigators determined wasn't true.
Trump, who then was under pressure for not having a foreign policy team, included
Papadopoulos as part of a list drawn up to fill that gap, and Papadopoulos participated in a
campaign meeting on March 31 in Washington at which he suggested a meeting between Trump and
Putin, a prospect that other senior aides reportedly slapped down.
The 'Email' Breakfast
But Papadopoulos continued
his outreach to Russia , according to the court documents, which depict the most explosive
meeting as an April 26 breakfast in London with the professor (Mifsud) supposedly saying he had
been in Moscow and "learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton"
and possessed "thousands of emails." Mainstream press accounts concluded that Mifsud must have
been referring to the later-released emails.
However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no
contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic
fields.
In an
interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged
meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court
papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and
called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a
"laughingstock."
According to the Telegraph
interview , Mifsud said he tried to put Papadopoulos in touch with experts on the European
Union and introduced him to the director of a Russian think tank, the Russian International
Affairs Council.
It was the latter contact that the court papers presumably referred to in saying that on May
4, the Russian contact with ties to the foreign ministry wrote to Papadopoulos and Mifsud,
reporting that ministry officials were "open for cooperation," a message that Papadopoulos
forwarded to a senior campaign official, asking whether the contacts were "something we want to
move forward with."
However, even an article in The New York Times, which has aggressively pushed the
Russia-gate "scandal" from the beginning, noted the evidentiary holes that followed from that
point.
The Times' Scott Shane
wrote : "A crucial detail is still missing: Whether and when Mr. Papadopoulos told senior
Trump campaign officials about Russia's possession of hacked emails. And it appears that the
young aide's quest for a deeper connection with Russian officials, while he aggressively
pursued it, led nowhere."
Shane added, "the court documents describe in detail how Mr. Papadopoulos continued to
report to senior campaign officials on his efforts to arrange meetings with Russian officials,
the documents do not say explicitly whether, and to whom, he passed on his most explosive
discovery – that the Russians had what they considered compromising emails on Mr. Trump's
opponent.
"J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon official who worked for the Trump campaign as a national
security adviser and helped arrange the March 31 foreign policy meeting, said he had known
nothing about Mr. Papadopoulos' discovery that Russia had obtained Democratic emails or of his
prolonged pursuit of meetings with Russians."
Reasons to Doubt
If prosecutor Mueller had direct evidence that Papadopoulos had informed the Trump campaign
about the Clinton emails, you would assume that the proof would have been included in Monday's
disclosures. Further, since Papadopoulos was flooding the campaign with news about his Russian
outreach, you might have expected that he would say something about how helpful the Russians
had been in publicizing the Democratic emails.
The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails
to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would
normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial
point.
At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official
Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for
so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets.
There is also another side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in the U.S. mainstream
media: that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that he received the two
batches of purloined Democratic emails – one about the Democratic National Committee and
one about Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – from the Russians. While it is
surely possible that the Russians might have used cutouts to pass on the emails, Assange and
associates have suggested that at least the DNC emails came from a disgruntled insider.
Also, former U.S. intelligence experts have
questioned whether at least one batch of disclosed emails could have come from an overseas
"hack" because the rapid download speed is more typical of copying files locally onto a memory
stick or thumb drive.
What I was told by an intelligence source several months ago was that Russian intelligence
did engage in hacking efforts to uncover sensitive information, much as U.S. and other nations'
intelligence services do, and that Democratic targets were included in the Russian effort.
But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered
release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something
that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election,
Hillary Clinton.
But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most
of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking
gun" of Russia-gate.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Herman , October 31, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Once again. Trump voluntarily jumps into the hot seat by trying to discredit or dismiss
the importance of someone who worked for him. This tactic may appeal to his committed
supporters but only sets himself up since his claims and statements about the irrelevance of
Papadopolous can be disproved. What he should be after is the truth about the emails
It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not
doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but
the lying. , .
Anna , October 31, 2017 at 1:21 pm
Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are
extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta
brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The
involvement had been substantial.
Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity
ever?
Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for
finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to
protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of
murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the
Pentagon).
What we see currently in DC is an attack of the Dulles' CIA against whatever has left of a
rule of law in this country. The RussiaGate is a dangerous play (not even a game) by the spoiled and incompetent "deciders"
who found Trump unpalatable.
Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Herman If the Clinton Campaign and the DNC can claim that they have no memory of
how the Fusion GPS opposition research was funded, for millions of dollars, then why isn't it
just as plausible that Trump had little or no contact or interaction with a low level staffer
like Papadopoulos? Last week we heard that it does not matter who funded Fusion GPS because
it is normal for campaigns to do opposition research even if it was from Russia. Yet, when
Trump Jr. took a meeting to do the same, it was labeled Treason. I imagine these
idiosyncrasies don't phase the average liberal MSM consumer, but they are a problem for Trump
supporters and a good reason why they voted him into the White House.
Herman , October 31, 2017 at 5:52 pm
I agree with you, it's just that I think Trump is wrong in attacking members of his staff
or cabinet. Let someone else do that. Discrediting people has worked but with Trump the
immediate response is focus on him and it doesn't help by attacking your own.
No, I believe
the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is
hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen
that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing
shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened.
Herman,
"It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not
doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but
the lying. ",,,very true, Bill Clinton's meaning of the word "is" comes to mind. As far as
the source of "Russian hacking" is concerned it appears that it may come down to academic
gossip.
In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile
tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from
the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation,
but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant."
You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime.
Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers
called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and
take him out. A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his
son-in-law. And its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul
Singer.
From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By
May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee. So the
Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving -- the DNC
and the Clinton campaign. To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the
party's law firm of Perkins Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins
used part of this cash hoard to pay Fusion GPS.
Here is where it begins to get interesting.
In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the
Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia. Steele began
contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And the Russians
began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his candidacy.
Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that
the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia.
In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on
to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish
it. Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated
and salacious allegations." Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James
Comey's FBI, which was apparently so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele
to continue his work.
About this "astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes
Sen. Chuck Grassley:
"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to
investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises
questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's
use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."
The questions begin to
pile up.
What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian
intelligence?
Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of Russia-Trump
"collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the National
Security Council?
Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify unmasking
the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic intercepts?
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta
and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had
enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified,
the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had
engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work."
One more time: "Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig
up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee
room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of
Steele's undercover work."
Is not this look much more compromising than an alleged involvement something the clueless
Papadopolous?
Podesta brothers and H. Clinton are criminals; there are mounds of evidence -- not
"alleged" and "perhaps" and "with high degree of confidence" -- but the hard evidence of
their criminal activities.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Anna – Excellent comments. Very accurate conclusions.
Anna, all your points are well taken,,,nice job of connecting the dots!
Joe Tedesky , October 31, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Anna you write it better than most reporters do, and yes it is amazing to how these
allegations in the Russia-Gate affair trumps the hard evidence found in the Hillary and Bill
pay for play kick back collusion with the Russians. Although, if you keep the channel dial on
CNN or MSNBC you may be put under the spell that Trump is a traitor, and guilty as charged of
treason in the court of public opinion which holds court on the 45th president nightly if you
care to watch. On the other hand if you watch FOX you will certainly start screaming 'lock
her up'. I personally find Hillary and Bill guilty of bribery in regard to their Uranium One
dealings, and I find her security breach inexcusable for what she did with her private
computer servers. I also can't get over how Crowd Strike took preference over the FBI to
examine Hillary's bleached hard drives in her illegally used computers. Then we have the
Trump people looking like a celebrity autograph hound standing at the wrong stage door exit
waiting to get their play program signed, only to miss their favorite celebrity, because of
course they were waiting at the wrong door. In fact the more that comes out about how Trump's
people tried to get something on Hillary from the Russians, the more foolish they look for
even trying.
There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to
do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American
government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves
leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be
the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA.
Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Yes, the goods are in and you called it like it is; our government is, and has been,
corrupt over many many Presidential Administrations and Congresses. The UNITED STATES is a
failed experiment in democracy and we have but ourselves to blame. A citizenry who takes no
interest or responsibility for Tha actions of its government deserves to die. The funeral is
not far off if anyone is remaining to attend, and this time learn from history. In the
meantime let's put all these people in jail; starting with the Clinton's.
Kalen , October 31, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Also and most importantly he should be after what was in those emails which describe
criminal acts, collusion, coercion and overall corruption in DNC for which many heads already
rolled after they were politically guillotined. Selective search for truth is a search for lies.
John Kirsch , October 31, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Excellent article.
Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 1:23 pm
This gets dirtier and dirtier everyday.
As an attorney, I can tell you that eyewitness testimony is the worst testimony you can
have, for various reasons:
1. People often mistake what they see (Watch 12 Angry Men from 1959, this is a good
example)
2. People lie for their own self interests
Without corroborating evidence, in the form of either circumstantial or direct, it is hard
to believe what is being put out.
But it is important to note that all good critical thinking requires an openness to new
evidence.
This being said, flipping the young aide is not enough.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:14 pm
Critical thinking is in short supply these days. I just dropped a class (supposedly) on
Circumpolar Social Issues,
because the professor told me that 'the class was geared to young adults' and she did not
expect them to engage
in critical thinking, what she was actually looking for was 'condensed regurgitation of the
text'. (She used those
exact words, which I had used previously to call her out on her abysmally awful exam). Yikes
! I had no idea there
was an age requirement for critical thinking ! (I found my young kids to be quite good at it,
and kept them out of
school so they wouldn't lose that capacity.)
When people end up in social media bubbles, they are engaging with a 'mirror-feedback
effect', which disallows
the openness to new evidence required for critical thinking. What we used to call a Catch-22
of sorts . . .
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm
Danny Weil –
Yes. We watched 12 Angry Men starring Henry Fonda just two weeks ago. Both, one and two of
your comments, very true and relevant in this case.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 9:38 pm
We performed that play in high school in about 1970 (the 12 Angry Women version, as there
were lots more
females than males interested in being in it). With simple staging, we were able to take it
to other area high
schools for performance. Would be a good play to resurrect ! (With a name change to 12 Angry
Citizens).
Michael , October 31, 2017 at 1:29 pm
Robert, you have done so much excellent reporting. And you are of course right to be
skeptical -- and you raise good questions. But man, doubt should be a screen not a hammer.
You write like a defense attorney rather than pursuer of the truth.
Might the Russia/Trump case be overstated? Yes. But it is getting harder and harder to
dismiss it.
with respect,
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm
It wasn't hard for any truthful person to refute the shabby russiagate lies. Why at you
having a problem doing that Michael?
Jonathan Marshall , October 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm
The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence
that Russia was behind the email hacking.
Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:41 pm
/The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence
that Russia was behind the email hacking./
Er, hmm, okay
The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by
a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide
damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution.
Please take your "damning (hearsay) evidence somewhere else. There is NO evidence whatever
of Russia hacking anything that has been presented – just slurs and innuendos. This
site puts a premium on real EVIDENCE.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm
Jonathan Marshall –
The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing
elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the
countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have
they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we
are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing
Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails –
who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it?
It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading
and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment
and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete
moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice
– whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in
Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries.
Dave P, I like and share this big picture view. I do value sites like this (and quality of
comment like this) to show it up. The hollowness of the mainstream shell game is being seen
by more and more people. The good news is that if we see that the shell game is a losing game
we're outside of it. Those "outsiders" are free, if the can grasp hold of it.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Judy Woodruff is among the worst offenders. I can't stand to watch/listen to her
anymore.
Is it true that she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ? I read that
somewhere.
Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:40 pm
We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many
citizens like yourself. Can "we" salvage enough to keep "our" country whole; or, does this
have to be an end but with a new beginning. Maybe a court of law prosecuting the entire
bunch, Democrats and Republicans, for crimes against humanity, aka war crimes, and crimes
against its citizenry, aka embezzlement, can save "us." The other two branches have certainly failed"us."
Abe , October 31, 2017 at 1:49 pm
George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli
political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the
neoconservative think tank in 2014. In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications. In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Israel's coming planned military assault on Lebanon and Syria has a lot to do with natural
gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights
region.
Among its numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242, Israel annexed the Syrian
Golan Heights in 1981.
Engdahl notes "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of all places the Golan
Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah on one side and
Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the other side, another
senseless war over control of oil."
Abe , October 31, 2017 at 2:06 pm
"US policymakers have stated multiple times that before war with Iran can be pursued
directly, both Syria and Hezbollah must be weakened first. A war with Lebanon thus could be a
means to either directly lead into direct conflict with Tehran, or as a means of preparing
for one in the near or intermediate future.
"Immediate Peace and Stability vs. Constant and Perpetual War
"What is clear is that the 2015 Russian intervention in Syria along with Iran's growing
influence in the region has rolled back attempts by the US and its partners to reassert
control over the Middle East they have sought since the Cold War. With a new multipolar
coalition of emerging regional and global powers, US dreams of hegemony will be increasingly
more difficult to achieve [ ]
"Lebanon has been a battlefield in the past the US has used as a vector toward greater
regional conflict. Its ability or inability to create conflict there again, directly or
through Israel, and that conflict's ability or inability to drag Iran, Syria and other
players in directly, will determine the outlook for America's wider agenda in the
region."
The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the
comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The
function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for
"fake news" and "alternative facts".
Knomore , October 31, 2017 at 2:20 pm
A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away. This story seems to suggest either
massive chutzpah on the part of the Clinton campaign or stupidity fueled by desperation. That
they would allow Mueller's investigation to go forward when they were sitting on a mountain
of graft, collusion and other malfeasance (i.e., uranium sold to Russia for among other
things half a million straight into Billl's pocket) all of it, really quite amazing.
We got two uniformly bad candidates in the 2016 elections, both of whom were/are ardent
supporters of Israel. How did that happen? And Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly
establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and
bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And
then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation
shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech
protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town
in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to
rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief
projects in America? If so, how did this come about?
Knomore, "A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away" I think you are anticipating
what's likely to happen if/when it does Wikileaks could well drop the other shoe, but Mueller
needs to finish his investigation even if it's headed in a bogus direction.
"Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and
bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA?"
excellent point and Saudi Arabia should register under FARA as well, for its sinister funding
of American think tanks.
Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm
From the World Socialist Web Site:"
31 October 2017
Three months ago, the World Socialist Web Site published its first exposé documenting
Google's blacklisting of the WSWS and other left-wing websites. It warned that Google's
actions were part of a sweeping campaign, coordinated with the US government, media and
intelligence agencies, to censor the Internet.
The period since this initial exposure has seen this campaign develop with extraordinary
speed, as the Democratic Party, working with major media outlets, uses unsubstantiated
allegations of Russian "hacking" of the 2016 election to mount a drive to criminalize
political opposition within the United States. What is involved is nothing less than the
greatest attack on the First Amendment since the Second World War
Yes, Our freedom of speech is under serious attack by the oligarchic fascist oppressors
within America. They fear truth more than anything.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm
It's mind blowing to see my liberal friends fall for all the Russophobic nonsense.
Mueller's indeed on a witch hunt. Try telling that to your Maddow brainwashed liberal
colleagues, sheesh.
Go after Trump for the right reasons! Not for phony baloney that puts the world on nuclear
brinkmanship!
Dmitri , October 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm
Trump provided them a very good reason to impeach him when last April he ordered an attack
on Syria in violation of both international law (an attack on a sovereign country that posed
no threat to the US) and the US law (a use of military force without Congress authorization).
But no, they all approved this illegal action!
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Exactly right Drew.
Stephen , October 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm
It appears that this whole thing is the Democrats version of the "birther" claims some
Republicans hung onto for years. I suppose I could be wrong but if they had solid evidence
you would see it thirty times a day like when they showed the twin towers falling thirty
times a day.
The Puerto Rico disaster is good enough reason to go after Trump but I suppose the lily white
Democratic elites don't care about Puerto Ricans anymore than does Trump.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Drew Hunkins – Yes. Very true.
Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm
I think there is a clear evidence that Trump's camp reached out to Russia. Whether the
Russians did anything to help Trump (e.g., DNC hack) is a different story. More than likely
not.
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Since when was "reaching out to Russia" a crime? This is just Orwellian word demonizing
BS.
Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Lying to federal investigator is. Contrary to a popular belief, stupid is a crime.
witters , October 31, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Andrew, how long did you get?
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Exactly mike k. Right now we need doves in Washington (if there are any left) trying their
damnedest to have a dialogue with Moscow. Just very recently the imbecilic Pence was at a
nuclear launch site in Minot ND pontificating to media and personnel who were present about
how they should be fully prepared to launch! This is preposterous and dangerous lunacy.
Washington has been virtually taken over by a militaristic-Zionist cabal and its currently
dead set on destabilizing relationships among nuclear powers. The demonization towards the
Kremlin at a time when the major media are fomenting a witch hunt atmosphere is breathtaking
to behold.
That liberals -- in their hatred of the big bad Trumpenstein -- are going along with this
terrifying group think is one of the more irrational and incredible dynamics I've ever
witnessed in my decades of following the politico-economic scene.
Hate Trump for the right reasons. Don't fall for a Paul Singer, Bill Kristol, et. al.,
orchestrated propaganda campaign.
Fitzgerald said the mark of a true intellectual is to hold two opposing views in one's
mind at the simultaneously and maintain the ability to function.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:49 pm
Whoops garbled my last paragraph:
hold two opposing views in one's mind simultaneously and maintain the ability to
function.
The editor regrets the error.
Mark Thomason , October 31, 2017 at 2:48 pm
The statement of charge does not set out meetings of the sort that need to be proved.
It does suggest that the guy has been cooperating against others, "proactive" about it too
as in wearing a wire.
It tells us to expect more, of a particular sort. That is the real importance, not what it
spells out.
fudmier , October 31, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Russia gate: another Divide and Conquer (D&C) staged propaganda bit. Here we go again!
Good report.
Look @ well researched https://isgp-studies.com/ explains how massively embedded
criminal networks use the awesome powers and resources of salaried government to deprive the
non salaried governed 99% (basically the video entranced barnyard hosted citizens) of their
quality of life and peace of mind. Suggest to study the ISGP site carefully; refer to it
often as it reveals a wealth of organized criminal activities and demonstrates just how
difficult it promises to be to maintain a human rights oriented integrity in government.
Unless the government is audited by the governed, and state secrets of any kind for any
reason are eliminated progress will never happen.
____Abe's citation of Engdahl => "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of
all places the Golan Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's
Hezbollah on one side and Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the
other side, another senseless war over control of oil."" suggest Tillerson s\b taken
seriously, as should the looming anticipation that the anti-Assad (Syrian belligerent
invaders) still plan to use false flag poison gas ops to bring down Assad, and to destroy
Syria, this time it seems to be in USA backed occupied Allepo, Syria ( see. https://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/ ). Its all
about oil and gas; take a look at the LNG oil and gas seaports' in America. then ask
yourselves .. who, where, why and when and what happens to 100 trillion private dollar
investment if the LNG business plan fails? ). Nothing will change until the video entranced
barnyard humanity is allowed to see the facts outside of false narrative propaganda. Could
the solution to better government and the elimination of war be as simple as being sure
everyone in the world has easy, accurately translated, access to unbiased, reliable news and
information? probably not, some means to get the barnyard critters to understand it would be
needed.
How long is this BS going to continue! Maybe we could produce a narrative on how the
United States interfere in elections globally; we do not have to dig that deep!
As usual good article
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm
The BS will continue until we find enough ways to stop it. This site is one way. Truth is
the antidote to lies.
Jay , October 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm
"George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims to have heard about Russia
possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the Internet, mostly via
WikiLeaks."
Respectfully: No one but Benghazi "gate" pushers care about Hillary Clinton's emails.
The leaked DNC emails and the very likely leaked Podesta emails on the other hand are of
grave concern, since they show the DNC conspiring against the Sanders nomination.
In short: Who cares what Papadopoulos has to say about Hillary emails, they're not really
the subject the "Russian hacking" claims.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Since "they" (Papadopoulos) never saw the e-mails (or any e-mails) it's impossible to know
which tranche of e-mails was (allegedly) offered and there are several known
collections/leaks/hacks, as well as possibly still unknown collections . making it even more
murky.
As needs to be remembered, even if an "insider" downloaded and leaked e-mails, that does
not preclude a hack and a hack does not preclude a leak (or multiple leaks or hacks).
She also reminds us that the first big WikiLeaks "Clinton e-mails" dump was the result of
FOIA request
the mind reels a bit (given the apparent insignificance of these dumps/leaks on public
opinion) but:
But there's no reason to believe that the emails in question, if they existed at all,
would have been the documents WikiLeaks ended up releasing in October of 2016. Firstly,
they could have been not emails from Podesta, but from Hillary Clinton herself. Remember,
there were numerous indications that Clinton's server was insecure and may have been hacked
by multiple foreign governments, any of which could have gotten them to the Kremlin for use
as blackmail following what was at the time believed to be Hillary's inevitable election.
Maybe it was the infamous 30,000 emails she deleted, who knows, or any number of possible
ways incriminating information can appear in email format. None of these fit into the
official Russia/WikiLeaks narrative, however, so Litman made it about Podesta emails.
It would be interesting if the phantom e-mails allegedly offered by "Russians" in
February/March were the same "dirt" allegedly offered in that August meeting
The stupidity of those still beating-a-dead-horse wrt Trump's "joke" about the Russians
maybe locating / hacking to find the 35,000 Clinton e-mails is beyond all endurance and yet
it persists.
I believe if there really was "law and order" in America, there would be massive arrests
of those in power and their allies, (Past and present) for war crimes and crimes against
humanity. Unfortunately what we are seeing is: The "Posturing of Evil"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
September 24, 2017
The Posturing of Evil
The posturing of evil is a sight to behold
Purveyors of war crimes that need to be told
Clad in expensive suits, are these well dressed war criminals
Men and women without any morals or principles
So called "leaders" of the human race
They really are a bloody disgrace
Invaders of countries in illegal wars
They are yesterday and today's warmongering whores
Millions are dead because of their atrocious war crimes
Millions are refugees because of their dirty pastime
Creating wars is what these war perverts do
Paid for by compulsory taxes from me and you
Financiers and supporters of terrorists as well
These treasonous villains create more hell
They are hypocrites that talk of, 'the rule of law"
Their lying words should stick in your craw
Countries are destroyed and civil wars rage
This is how the corporate cannibals get paid
Supplying the weapons of death and disaster
Killing innocent victims very much faster
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries too
Are hell holes of destruction caused by this unholy crew
They parade on the world stage and give unctuous talks
When really most of these criminals should be in the dock
On trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity
Instead they are free and spreading their insanity
They have caused death and destruction and massive upheaval
How much more will people take of this posturing of evil?
Your poems pack a punch Stephen. They are a treat for truth lovers.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm
The careerism of the "respected" mass media commentators, journalists and talking heads
could lead the world to nuclear war. Many of these whores know exactly what they're doing.
Many of them know there was no attempt by the Kremlin to "hack" the election or otherwise
interfere in the election but they feed the public repetitive nonsense over and over and over
again.
That otherwise liberal minded, intelligent people are buying into this dangerous group
think is one of the more incredible things I've ever witnessed.
People's critical thinking faculties have left them. Otherwise intelligent people are
bereft of critical thinking skills when it comes to the big bad Trumpenstein and it's
horrifying to see this all play out.
Attack Trump for the right reasons, NOT because he desire rapprochement with Moscow and
dared to suggest the Washington empire should be reined in a bit.
Bill , October 31, 2017 at 5:29 pm
*Trump gets caught on tape discussing the hacking of the DNC with Putin himself, and
laughing about how they were going to get Trump the presidency together.*
Robert Parry, probably: "While this would seem to bolster the Russiagate narrative, the
media's blowing it out of proportion, and what if it's a fake tape? And what about
Hillary!?"
You're truly a stand up guy dude, and I appreciate your journalism, but I think you're
kinda biased on this one.
That's not to say you're not correct about MSM intolerance of debate and skepticism.
That's absolutely true. Still, I think it's pretty clear what happened here, and that the DNC
was indeed hacked. Might not ever get legally proven, but let's be real. That's exactly what
this looks like.
Leslie F , October 31, 2017 at 5:42 pm
"Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump
with the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the
disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the
FBI."
Well, there is a conspiracy against the United States charge against Manafort which could
mean almost anything like conspiracy to evade taxes which would fit with the money laundering
or it could be an attempt to tie him to the dubious Papadapoulos narrative. Papadapoulas has
only with charged with lying to the FBI, not with anything that could be called "collusion".
Maybe that was the plea agreement or maybe they know the case isn't really there.
ADL , October 31, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Ahh yes Parry's weekly comical defense of the 'man with a plan'. Kinda disappointed tho
– I mean usually his columns are headlined with COUP COUP COUP.
Let's see now. Robert Mueller is a hack, won't let poor Parry into his inner circle, and
amazingly does not leak or publicize exactly who and what he is investigating. And everything
he has learned during such. And Parry takes his weekly shots. Pretty pathetic.
"credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea' ??????? That is pretty
comical yes?
Parry's defense of Papa is incredibly amateurish – he should start screenwriting TV
Drama's. According to Parry Mueller should lay out every piece of evidence he has, should try
his whole case in his indictment and in the public theater. And have all the evidence within
30 days of investigation or give up. Or better yet just include Parry on his Prosecutor team.
But that would not work – from day one Parry has been Trump's #1 defender. Hell, it
took Trump praising the KKK in Charlottesville to even get a whimper of outrage out of
Parry.
This continual drivel plays out like a desperate person who is completely out of the loop,
or better yet a man with a pathological grudge – almost always against NYT and
WAPO.
I have no issues with calling out any person, and media. But Parry reads like Hannity or
Trump himself. It's embarrassing and not worth the paper written on.
Anon , October 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Zionist alert – ADL is the only truth in the comment.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:06 pm
This whole special investigation is like something out of Kafka. It starts with
unsubstantiated politically-driven accusations by the opposition party, progresses to a witch
hunt to desperately find any evidence against the prime target (Trump), and when that hole
proves dry it slouches toward trying to trick and trap peripheral witnesses (Papadopoulos)
into making contradictory statements for which they can be indicted for "lying" to federal
agents. Or else political or business associates of the target (Manafort) can be pressured
and indicted on unrelated offenses. That indictment can then be used as leverage to get the
indicted person to turn evidence (whether any exists or not) against the primary target in
return for reduced sentences or even pardons. If this useful tool lies further in trying to
please his new masters, who cares? Mission accomplished. Before this is over, there will be
more kangaroos at large in American courts than on the Australian continent. America is truly
a beacon of freedom, democracy and, above all, JUSTICE for the entire world to admire. How
utterly exceptional! A country where even its elected president can be railroaded like a
common street criminal if it suits those ruling from the shadows. Behold the coup d'etat
thrown together with nothing more than smoke and mirrors, vague accusations and strong-arm
tactics against witnesses. Sure, Trump is a dumb arrogant jerk, but the characters after his
hide are trying to steal the remnant shards we still possess of our constitutional
"democracy," republic or whatever you might have called it.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm
This has now moved beyond questions of "the hack" and Russia-gate to the meta issues of
who will be indicted next and for what they're moving quickly into "it's not the alleged
crime (conspiracy**), it's the cover-up" territory which would suggest Flynn is next which
would/could be a game changer.
As Clintoni was not impeached because he had sex with Lewinsky, but that he lied during a
deposition . Trump could be brought down if multiple aides are willing to testify that he
"participated" in the "alleged conspiracy"
** Mentioned recently was that the word/term "collusion" is not a legal one Collusion is
not a crime, almost any communication "might" be collusions -- a conspiracy to commit a crime
can be/is (though usually it is the crime that is prosecuted, rather than the conspiracy --
see also terrorism prosecutions based on, for example, a person's preparations to travel to X
country to fight for jihad, or various "material support" convictions for piddling "support"
, waterproof socks anyone?)
Remember also that it's been floated that the FBI's investigation is winding down in
advance of being closed -- and that the congressional investigations will likely be hampered
by indictments and the legal advice that will be brought to bear.
I'm rather doubtful that Manafort (savvy businessman) would have involved / intermingled
his business dealings with reckless and sleazy Donald Trump even if he did buy a condo in
Trump tower.
Manafort was brought in to handle the delegates at the convention, to prevent a revolt or
other embarrassment from the Never Trump faction(s). He did that, with his long-standing top
echelon GOP ties and god knows what else. I'm relatively doubtful he has any smoking gun to
trade in a plea bargain and I suspect he has elite friends and backers who will ensure that
he (and family) will be taken care of if he's convicted, and -- given the nature of elite
prosecutions -- he may have a conviction reversed on appeal and/or be allowed -- once he has
solidly refused to be "turned -- to pay massive fines in exchange for a guilty plea.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:32 pm
note also that as outlined so far, Team Trump never solicited dirt from the Russians --
rather it was either volunteered or dangled wrt the August meeting, possibly as bait in order
to "win" a meeting and the offered "gift" of dirt was never either accepted or received
I'm unsure if there is any reality to the implication of some legal responsibility to
report such an "offer" of dirt . and yes, the "hypocrisy" of Steele solicitiing and paying
for Kremlin dirt may result in another "investigation" again of "collusion"
Anonymot , October 31, 2017 at 6:19 pm
The the U.S. mainstream media opposes Trump, which is very understandable, but it is hard
to comprehend why they are so totally unbalanced and unquestioning. Of course, there is a
minute number like Fox, but sources that rest on their laurels as center and center left (by
US definition) have abandoned any objectivity. Realists are reduced to you and Intercept are
all that are left. Even Truthout and RSN, Buzzfeed, and most others act as though Hillary
will still be President – or maybe is. I read the Guardia daily, but it just mirrors
the NYT. Also Le Monde that is more European centered, but one sees Clintonian America in
much of its coverage.
I'm at a loss to understand the why & how the MSM turned to propaganda machines.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:53 pm
I was watching the BBC world news on cable tonight. They are completely in the bag on this
rubbish that Putin's Troll factory or somebody (the last of the Bolsheviks, perhaps) posting
a piddling number of ads on facebook from allegedly Russian IP addresses (possibly CIA, if
you ask me) poisoned the minds of well over a hundred million Americans–probably
convincing every one of them to vote for Trump putatively against their self-interests and
good judgement. Formerly respectable journalists, IT experts and academics are lending their
images and reputations to this idiotic narrative. Apparently, the whole nation got schooled
in Putin's treachery before the Congress this afternoon. So, sayeth the expert witnesses.
This is Group Think like I've never seen before in my 70 years on this planet. Very
distressing that 90+% of Americans can be so mind-controlled and deluded, even those with
relevant expertise and an inside track to the facts.
D.H. Fabian , October 31, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Yes, and from the very start, the Clintonites began spinning this situation into the
anti-Russian Tale. Most likely, it will be years before the excessive propaganda and
counter-propaganda of 2017 is sorted out.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:03 pm
I have to wonder about a Nuland/Kagan Ukranian foundation as I began to wonder in the last
few days if the existing (quite likely partisan) investigations of Manafort going back years,
were used to piggyback the sliming of Trump last summer the rejoicing when Manafort resigned
was rather disproportionate (given he'd only been in the job for 3 months), possibly
vindictive (but wrt what?) particularly given the varied Biden and McCain and Podesta
interests in that same small Ukrainian pond (Crimea, Crimea, Crimea!!!!!)
Doubt Clinton wrote all those Russian/Trump talking points by herself and the mythos of
Putin as militarily aggressive/existential threat also arises and is referred back to the
Ukraine (because Syria really isn't some credible base of power/sphere of influence, while
the treat to nato countries is "golden" and "evergreen").
Seriously impressive how the wishes of the people of Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine) are
discounted, erased ..
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:19 pm
Fwiw, my thought at the time, was that Clinton was "priming the pump" (manufacturing
consent) for an extremely assertive out-of-the gate foreign policy assault on Russia/Putin
(now that pokey cowardly Obama was out of the way)
In any event, yes, Clinton's anti-Putin/Russia campaign and Trump/Russian money ties --
iirc -- began long before the alleged DNC hack piggybacking reweaving the "narrative"?
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:01 pm
seriously .honest I have zero Russian "connection" but just discovered Lavrov, per RT, is
suggesting that Mueller probe Manifort's Ukraine connections
It's always been curious how many of Manifort's "Russian connections" weren't "Russian"
Ukraine, Khazikstan, other ex-USSR satellites with oligarchs of their own
It should be noted the Manifort is a despicable human being who (very successfully and for
a lot of money) does PR work for "bad people" while the USA officially, successfully,
compellingly, does the same for financial and other favors (KSA, Duerte, even Saddam Hussein,
the Shah of Iran)
Jessejean , October 31, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Susan–I totally agree with you. I thought the same thing last Nov. and was sure the
effing First Woman President would have us in a shooting war with Russia before Christmas if
she were elected. I'd love to see Robert The Great do a complete analysis of Russia gate,
starting with Lybia, Syria, Ukraine (and Nuland), including the Sons Podesta just to see what
the web looks like objectively. Put Killery and Saudi Arabia in the middle of that web and
hey presto, we could fire Mueller with no loss of the truth.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 9:46 pm
Not so funny -- but -- I largely accepted that Hilary Clinton would be the next president
that the failure of some upsurge of resistance to Obama suggested that "Democrats" were going
to ratify Obama (as devastatingly disappointing as he was) and kick-it-up-a-notch being more
interventionalist, more in-your-face aggressive.
Never occurred to me that Sanders was anything more than a sheepdog, keeping those
adorably idealistic Obama army "kids" in their blue shirts, keeping them from defecting from
the Blue Team.
The lack of polling is becoming conspicuous, imho. Slavoj Zizek has become a punchline (at
least in the USA/UK universe) because (imho) he raises uncomfortable issues wrt to
reconciling long-standing ideals with realities (political and physical) While "we" have our
differences, I am appalled by the wide-spread de-platforming that (unlike Facebook and
Twitter demographics) is un-graphed and ignored . that censorship by neglect, indifference,
silent lack of regard .. erosion of even the intellectual pretence of curiosity and/or open
mindedness.
Lois Gagnon , October 31, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Don't ask me why, but I suspect this insanity is going to drag on for another 3 years. If
we live that long. I wouldn't mind if I thought it would keep the insiders from doing their
worst damage to us and everyone else on the planet, but I'm sure they'll use the distraction
to get away with as much criminal behavior as they can. Collapsing Empire is not a pretty
sight.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm
be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied
Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious,
scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in
"violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being
out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)
"... At the very least, it seems that they would have to prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that. Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising. ..."
Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller
Monday:
-They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation
and Russia.
-They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia.
The trick is you can replace the first bullet point with anything and it still works if
you're a DemocRAT.
Let's try –
They don't provide a smoking gun proving that aliens built the pyramids out of gorgonzola
cheese, but they make it almost impossible to believe there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia.
Fun for the whole family! And way to go Ezra Klein – it's like a new 6 degrees of
Kevin Bacon.
I've been wondering – what do they think that they can actually prove in court? What
crime(s) do they believe Trump committed? At the very least, it seems that they would have to
prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that.
Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything
related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is
that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the
scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising.
Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the
DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with
secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free
election.
Notable quotes:
"... What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian intelligence? ..."
"... Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election. ..."
Well over a year after the FBI began investigating "collusion" between the Trump campaign
and Vladimir Putin, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has brought in his first major
indictment.
Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been charged with a series of crimes dating back
years, though none is tied directly to President Donald Trump or 2016.
With a leak to CNN that indictments were coming, Mueller's office stole the weekend
headlines. This blanketed the explosive news on a separate front, as the dots began to be
connected on a bipartisan plot to bring down Trump that began two years ago.
And like "Murder of the Orient Express," it seems almost everyone on the train had a hand in
the plot.
The narrative begins in October 2015.
Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers
called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and
take him out.
A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his son-in-law. And
its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.
From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By
May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee.
So the Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving --
the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the party's law firm of Perkins
Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins used part of this cash hoard
to pay Fusion GPS.
Here is where it begins to get interesting.
In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the
Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia.
Steele began contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And
the Russians began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his
candidacy.
Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that
the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump campaign
and Russia.
In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on
to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish
it.
Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated
and salacious allegations."
Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James Comey's FBI, which was apparently
so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele to continue his work. About this
"astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes Sen. Chuck
Grassley:
"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to
investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises ...
questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's
use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."
The questions begin to pile up. What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who
was so wired into Russian intelligence?
Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of
Russia-Trump "collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the
National Security Council?
Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify
unmasking the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic
intercepts?
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta
and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted
Fusion GPA or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer
sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion
GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work. Here one is tempted to cite Bismarck
that, if you wish to enjoy politics or sausages, you should not inquire too closely how they
are made.
Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign,
the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working
with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free
election.
If future revelations demonstrate that this is what went down, it is not only the White
House that has major problems.
If you wish to know why Americans detest politics and hate the "swamp" that has been made of
their capital city, follow this story all the way to its inevitable end. It will be months of
unfolding.
The real indictment here is of the American political system, and the true tragedy is the
decline of the Old Republic.
"Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the
DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with
secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election"
[Patrick Buchanan,
Real Clear
Politics ].
"It sure looks like there was collusion between the Trump operation and Russia" [Ezra Klein,
Vox ]. "Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller
Monday: They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation
and Russia. They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia."
"Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Go Away. She Should Embrace Her Role as Trump's Nemesis." [Jeet
Heer,
The New Republic ]. "With the Mueller investigation now besieging Trump, there's no better
time for Clinton to deploy her special gift of enraging Trump. More than any other politician,
she can speak to the legitimacy crisis in his government, and the success of her bestselling memoir
What Happened proves that there is a vast audience eager to listen." Please kill me now.
"It is surely a scandal, and not just in the political sense, when the former chairman of a
presidential campaign is indicted for work related to a corrupt foreign government. At the same
time, it's important to remember that Paul Manafort's indictment is not evidence that President
Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election" [Editorial Board,
Bloomberg ].
* * *
"How Manafort lost $600,000 in a shell company the government now says was used for money laundering"
[Francine McKenna,
MarketWatch ]. The shell company was Lilred. "Lilred is an investment vehicle that was set
up by Manafort to invest in a strategy that involved stripping the interest payments from a group
of high-yield Ginnie Mae insured mortgages to create a collateralized mortgage obligation. Investors
could buy those CMO securities, on margin, and use the high-yield interest payments to service
the debt and capture a positive difference between the interest rates, or spread." They call it
an investment vehicle because it's designed to drive off with your money
"Tony Podesta stepping down from lobbying giant amid Mueller probe" [
Politico ] Whoopsie. That was fast.
"Washington's Legions Of Lobbyists See Danger In Special Counsel's Indictment Of Manafort"
[
Buzzfeed ]. "The threat of serving hard time for failing to disclose foreign lobbying work
is rattling Washington's multi-billion dollar influence industry following Monday's 12-count indictment
against Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates. And
although the charges have largely been seen as a blow to the White House, Monday's actions by
special prosecutor Robert Mueller also sent shivers down the spines of Washington's lobbyists,
both Democrats and Repulicans."
The mysterious (and 30-year-old) Papadopoulos: "[C]ourt documents unsealed by the special counsel's
office on Monday show that he was in communication with the highest-ranking officials on the campaign"
[
RealClearPolitics ]. "Papadopoulos came to the Trump campaign in March of 2016 with little
experience in the foreign policy realm compared to advisers on more traditional campaigns. Trump's
unconventional campaign did not attract the high-level foreign policy experts typically drawn
to presidential contenders . [T[he lack of a substantial foreign policy team created risks, some
that might be coming back to bite him." And: "[I]t's the final footnote of the special counsel's
now-unsealed document on Papadopoulos that has all sides interested, and likely concerned: 'Following
his arrest, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met with the Government on numerous occasions to provide information
and answer questions.'"
To justify the 180 degree shift on an anti-Afghan policy position that he had tweeted about
vociferously for six years running (see below), the Donald's teleprompter scripters offered an
explanation that was beyond lame:
"My original instinct was to pull out – and, historically, I like following my
instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the
desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're President of the United
States."'
Actually, we are relived to hear Trump finally recognizes that he actually is President and
wish he would start doing something presidential. For instance, he could declassify all the NSA
intercepts about purported Russian meddling in the US election, and prove that it's all a hoax
generated by Obama's despicable national security advisor, John Brennan, and a handful of deep
state operatives who properly feared the Donald's solid anti-interventionist instincts.
So doing, Trump could crush the anti-Russian hysteria and the Deep State/Dem/mainstream
media campaign to hound him from office and get on with the desperately important business of
effectuating a rapprochement with Russia. World peace depends on it; the failing American
Empire can't be dismantled without it; and the nation's fast growing fiscal calamity can't be
stemmed unless there is a drastic, multi-hundred billion reduction in defense spending.
But it's not to be. The Donald has been hoodwinked by three discredited, failed generals
– Kelly, McMasters, and Mattis – who have been dissembling, spinning and lying to
civilian officials about Afghanistan for most of the past 17 years. Any generals worth their
salt would have told their civilian superiors years ago that Afghanistan is mission impossible
and irrelevant to the security of the American homeland. That's because there never was more
than a few hundred al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and when bin-Laden hightailed to his
hideaway in Pakistan in 2003 that should have been the end of Washington's pointless but
incredibly destructive invasion and occupation.
By contrast, there was never any US national security interest whatsoever in cleansing the
godforsaken lands of the Hindu Kush of the 12th century Taliban fanatics who took over this
hapless country during the 1990s. And largely with weapons that had been supplied by the CIA
during the 1980s in a pointless mission to drive the Soviets out.
"... Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta. ..."
"... "Comply or we'll quit"? That's not a coup, that's a strike. ..."
"... Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him. ..."
"... The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship. Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do. ..."
"... I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him." ..."
"... A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be. ..."
And the solution? McCain doesn't quite say, instead descending into sheer babble: "We need a
strategy that lifts our sights above the tactical level and separates the urgent from the truly
important." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but my guess is that, if pressed for
details, McCain will argue for more war, not less. He will ignore what the wars he has so
energetically endorsed have cost and what little they have accomplished.
And yet McCain's column stands as a model of logic and circumspection in comparison to
Thomas Friedman's. If McCain's reputation has spiked upward lately, Friedman's has tanked, at
least so it seems to me. The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies
have proven largely bogus.
The title of Friedman's piece takes the form of a directive: "General Mattis, Stand Up to
Trump or He'll Drag You Down." Friedman begins, as he so often does, by quoting himself at
length. In an earlier column, he had instructed Trump's generals -- Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster
-- to "stand up and reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration from the
top." They failed to comply.
Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has not
been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer, the only one who has not visibly lied on
Trump's behalf, and who can still put some fear into Trump" -- to seize control of the
situation and save the Republic from the individual elected to the presidency less than a year
ago.
"Secretary Mattis," Friedman writes, "we don't need any more diagnosis of the problem. We
need action." The necessary action is this: Along with Kelly and McMaster, Mattis should tell
Trump "that if he does not change his ways you will all quit, en masse."
"Trump needs to know that it is now your way or the highway -- not his," Friedman
writes, certain that the threat of collective resignation will bring Trump to heel. In effect,
he is urging Trump's generals to coerce their commander-in-chief into relinquishing the
authority that is rightly his according to the Constitution. They will make the decisions.
Trump will sign the necessary paperwork.
Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed
contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the
nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief
to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta.
What does it say about the state of public discourse that views such as these appear in what
is ostensibly the nation's most influential publication? You decide. But I think it says that
the crisis facing our country is much bigger than Trump.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.
You sure picked a prime pair of bozos. In their different ways, McCain and Friedman embody
what the rotten DC establishment and how it got that way.
I'm not surprised that their drivel is still being peddled by the NY Times. It'll be a
great pleasure to see what happens to the perps and their cozy little institutions over the
next few years.
"Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question:
Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time
since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?"
Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the
generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him.
"Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed
contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the
nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian
commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the
junta."
I'm not a fan of Friedman, putting it mildly, and his column is indicative of a second
grader's understanding of American politics, but advocating for mass resignation is..not
advocating for a coup.
Its pretty ironic that before the election, during a Trump/Clinton debate, when Trump was
asked if he would honor the election results, he said something like "We'll see". The
establishment went bonkers and feigned moral outrage at Trump for not giving an unqualified
statement of supporting the election results. Of course that was when it was virtually 100%
certain in their minds that the Hillary would win. Now, we see that a year later they still
have not accepted the result.
If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, they ain't seen nothin yet.
The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship.
Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do.
When Pres Trump was warned about who he allowed into his inner circle, he ignored said
warnings. I am sure that the generals are honorable pole, but they have been on board with the
mess that exists, hardly a in that they woud support a agenda that tones down the risky
conflict they helped mold and support. I think it was also made clear that these people would
not stop. Trying to please them was not going to be effective. The battle was too much in
your face – they are not New york brawler. They don't get that once its over, its play
nice time. Not given the sheer viciousness of the struggle. They played low ball from the
beginning and they had no intention of letting up.
They have to change the rules and the game, hence the Russia gambit, special prosecutors
(always the concern because they have no boundaries.) who can go willy nilly wherever they so
choose. And they are changing the rules.
They have been talking about a coup prior to the election.
______________
"Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has
not been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer . . ."
@Fran Macadam, please explain the difference between oligarchy/military dictatorship and
'elites'. pun intended, dare I day, the former is/are every real, and the latter (per Fox
News/Bannonite definition) are the very essence of "fake".
I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at
Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think
good and need not bother informing him."
This might prove to be the most regrettable part of this very regrettable presidency. We
might just get through it, but it will be with no thanks to the man (reputedly) in charge.
On major economic issues it has always been neo-liberal, which is not "liberal" at
all.
On foreign policy, it has always been neo-con, never considering a war it does not
advocate, never considering overseas commitments it does not welcome.
If McCain and Friedman oppose Trump, it is not to seek liberal solutions to domestic
problems. They both want neo-con solutions to foreign problems.
When they deal with economics, which is a lesser issue with each, it is for neo-liberal
solutions on which they dislike Trump's populism, like the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Trump may be bad, but not for the reasons offered by these two. For what they discuss,
they are the bad guys.
To accept a position in the administrations of Bush, Obama, or now Trump, in itself proved
conclusively that the person in question would not have the moral integrity and principled
convictions to be "a moderating influence" or otherwise shape policy. Powell under Bush is a
revealing example, all the way down to Vials Of Mass Destruction. Mattis and Tillerson, and
indeed anybody else who chose work with Trump – including McConnell, Ryan, Schumer,
Pelosi – define what rational expectations we could have of them, by their very act of
association.
Now if only flatworlding tools like "Suck On This" would fall for the notion of the
"upstanding careerist".
I stopped taking J. McCain and T. Friedman seriously long ago, but in the current context of
American global and Middle eastern politics I read them to know what is going on in their
confused heads.
A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization
remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would
add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat
he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be.
This week's bombshell - that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed former
British spy Christopher Steele's salacious dossier allegedly connecting Donald Trump and Russia
- may suggest something even more devious. The dossier was compiled by the notorious firm
Fusion GPS, which also worked for Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the very woman who met
with Donald Trump Jr. in a meeting deemed pivotal to the case for Trump-Russia "collusion."
The Fusion GPS connection raises a supremely interesting question: Did the Clinton campaign
actually orchestrate the meeting between Trump campaign officials and Veselnitskaya? Is the
entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative the result of a Clinton set-up?
After PJ Media's Liz
Sheld suggested the idea to this reporter, it seemed increasingly plausible. Not only does
the timeline work out, but Clinton attacked Trump as Putin's puppet and Clinton's connections
to Russia had been powerfully reported in 2015. What better way to distract from Clinton's ties
to Russia than proving "collusion" on Trump's part?
When Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort on June 9, 2016, she pressed
them on the adoption issue, part of the Russian efforts to
undermine the Magnitsky Act . The act - signed by President Barack Obama in December 2012 -
imposed sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for the death of Russian lawyer
Sergei Magnitsky, who unearthed massive fraud within the Russian government and was imprisoned,
tortured, and killed for it in 2009. Hermitage Capital Management CEO
Bill Browder testified that the sanctions "personally" affect Russian President Vladimir
Putin's wealth.
Putin retaliated by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by American families.
Previously, Russia had allowed Americans to adopt sick Russian children, and they adopted kids
suffering with HIV, Down Syndrome, and other ailments. Due to this retaliation for the
Magnitsky Act, Browder testified, these sick children now languish in Russian orphanages and
many will die before their 18th birthdays.
As it turns out, Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to lobby the U.S. government on this very
issue, one extremely pivotal to Putin's monetary interests.
In July, Browder testified that "Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson
of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance
of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act." This alleged smear campaign took place
in 2014, two years before the presidential election. Through this business, Veselnitskaya made
friends with Fusion GPS.
In April 2016, two months before Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump campaign officials, the
law firm Perkins Coie, as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, hired
Fusion GPS for research into Trump,
The Washington Post revealed this past week. In a letter to Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie
general counsel Matthew Gehringer noted that his law firm revealed its role in hiring Fusion
GPS in order to help keep Fusion GPS's list of clients confidential. What is the opposition
research firm trying to hide?
In March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie to see if it its clients would be
interested in paying the firm "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate
Donald Trump." Through Perkins Coie, the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to
perform research that led to the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
On Friday, it was revealed that the
Washington Free Beacon was the original source paying Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The
conservative news outlet insisted that none of the research it paid for was included in the
infamous Steele dossier, however. The Post reported that Fusion GPS hired Steele after the
Democratic funding began, supporting the Free Beacon's version of events.
To recap: Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to undermine Magnitsky's reputation in 2014. The
Clinton campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier in April 2016. Two
months later, Donald Trump Jr. received an
email inviting him to meet with Veselnitskaya ostensibly to gather opposition research on
Clinton -- but at the meeting Veselnitskaya tried to push the Trump campaign to oppose the
Magnitsky Act.
Then, as the DNC and the Clinton campaign pinned the DNC hack to Russia and Trump cited
emails leaked by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton began attacking Trump as "Putin's puppet." At the
third presidential debate, Clinton argued that Putin supported Trump because he "would rather
have a puppet as president of the United States."
Clinton never brought up the Trump campaign's meeting with Veselniskaya during the election,
but she certainly suggested Trump was in bed with the Russians.
It is plausible that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through Fusion GPS, suggested
to Veselnitskaya that she should meet with the Trump campaign. This would have given the
Democrats a clear link between Trump and the Russians, and it would have given Veselnitskaya an
opportunity to further her work on Putin's behalf, with one of the two leading presidential
campaigns. Furthermore, Fusion GPS's role as an intermediary would have given both plausible
deniability.
According to a
recent FEC complaint , the Clinton campaign and the DNC obfuscated their hiring of Fusion
GPS by listing payments to the law firm Perkins Coie as being for "legal services." This
violated the law, as the money really went to opposition research. The decision to work through
Perkins Coie -- and to mislead the FEC about the nature of services -- suggests the Clinton
campaign and the DNC were hiding something.
Clinton also would have had an incentive to try and manufacture connections between Trump
and Russia. Throughout 2015 and into early 2016, Trump was the Republican frontrunner, and he
had praised Putin
many times , suggesting he would "get along well" with the Russian president. The Russia
angle made sense for Clinton to develop, and it would have been a perfect way to distract from
her own troubling Russia connections.
If Clinton wanted to convince Americans that Trump is Putin's real puppet, her campaign
would need more evidence than a few positive comments. After all, Trump was not the candidate
who helped approve a 2010 deal giving Russian company Rosatom 20 percent of U.S. uranium --
right at the time when that very
Russian company was under FBI investigation . The FBI kept the investigation secret, just
when it would have been most important.
In 2015, Peter Schweitzer had published the blistering story in The New York Times
uncovering Clinton's connections to and benefits from the 2010 Uranium One purchase. Her
husband, former President Bill Clinton, had been paid $500,000 for a speech -- at a Russian
bank promoting Uranium One stock.
According to an anonymous witness threatened by the Obama administration, the FBI
investigation into Rosatom also uncovered documents and an eyewitness account rather
inconvenient for the Clintons. This evidence corroborated earlier reports that Russian
officials had routed millions of dollars into the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation just
as Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which
endorsed the Uranium One deal. This past Wednesday night, the Department of Justice finally
authorized the informant to disclose his information and documents.
At the same time as the FBI kept its Rosatom investigation secret, the agency acted fast to
bust a Russian spy ring because it got too close to Hillary Clinton
This past week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that his investigation into
Manafort had extended to cover Tony Podesta -- a Clinton campaign bundler who co-founded the
Podesta Group with his brother, Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta. Both Manafort and
Podesta may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an allegation
PJ Media reported last April . Emphasizing Manafort might have revealed Podesta and his
connections to Clinton.
If Clinton secretly orchestrated the meeting between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign,
why did that news not come up in the campaign?
First, the meeting only lasted about 20 minutes, according to Donald Trump Jr. If the
Clinton campaign orchestrated the meeting -- hoping for either proof of Trump-Russia collusion
or to start a long-term relationship between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign to use as a
weapon later -- they would have been disappointed to hear the meeting went nowhere.
Expecting to triumph on November 8, Hillary Clinton might have decided not to release the
news of this event, deeming it unnecessary for her victory.
Even so, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign did actually orchestrate the
Veselnitskaya meeting. Questions like this make it very important for the list of Fusion GPS
clients to become public. If Fusion GPS was still working for Veselnitskaya, or was in contact
with her in the lead-up to the meeting with Trump Jr., that might suggest the entire
Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative was created by Democrats or the Clinton campaign.
It is already ironic enough that Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into
Trump-Russia connections, is the same man who led the FBI when it covered up the investigation
into Rosatom right when it was convenient for Hillary Clinton. Unless some very damning
evidence finally comes out against Trump, this investigation seems likely to get worse and
worse for Clinton and the Democrats.
"Was The Trump Camp's Meeting With Russian Lawyer All A Clinton Set-Up?"
If that empty plus-size pants suit wasn't smart enough to pass the bar exam, she wasn't
nearly smart enough to pull something like that off. Podesta is so fucking dumb, that he got
nailed by a high school phishing scam, and his brother was already up to his nostrils in
Viktor Yanukovych shit, just like Manafort. As for Billy Bob, late stage syphilis has finally
taken it's toll his lizard brain. But let's face it, the Trump sons won't be shattering any
IQ test records, either. Those idiots set themselves up.
It almost certainly was all a set-up. Trump's campaign, and later his transition team, was
under surveillance by the Obama administration and they needed justification to continue the
spying. This whole thing was orchestrated dirty tricks by corrupt Obama and his paid
enforcers. Now Mueller is continuing the abuse of power as the media circus laughs and
applauds. We have serious problems.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS AND Crowdstrike, cyber security firm that claimed Russia
hacked DNC servers that FBI didn't give enough of a fuck to look at.
What people don't understand is, that the Russian PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the
Deep State & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton Globalist was
the game plan all long.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If the Deep State could of pulled off the
False Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing our Elections the Deep State could & will
hack into Russia's National Elections next March. Call it pay back.
The Deep State's destabilization campaign in Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the
ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize Russia during their upcoming elections.
Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured
those destabilization cells are in place to ready to be activated come Russia's next election
cycle.
I don't think "ironic" is the right word to use for Mueller's involvement in both brooming
any investigation of Hillary and Uranium One then and now leading the fake collusion witch
humt. I might choose "convenient", "suspicious", or "planned".
Another point, the last pages of the Pissgate dossier were added after the election. They
said Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russian agents about payment to the hackers. This was
used as cause for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. What was McCains involvement, and the
FBIs.
Entrapment is as old
as civilization. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement
agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been
unlikely or unwilling to commit. [1] It "is the conception and
planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not
have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer." [2]
"
Previously I thought that members of Hillary entourage were complete idiots both as for
computer security and generally security wise. Now it looks like Trump entourage have has the
same problem: many of they were idiots.
In "After Snowden" world anybody who wants to communicate with a unknown foreign person via
Facebook of Twitter on issues of any political significance is an idiot. Because chances of hoax,
provocation of in case of Trump team "false flag operation" are nearly 100%. This way you can
implicate anybody in Russian ties: hire a hoaxer and ask him to pretend that he is Russian. To
simp0lify the matter ask him to use Skype to communicate with the target. Send a couple of
incriminating emails. Any of Nigerian spammers can be used for this purpose. They are already
trained. Rinse and repeat.
So how we can be sure that this idiot Papadopoulos was not set up? BTW he ws
born in 1987 -- so he just out of the college (graduated in 2009). What does he know about
foreign policy?He never has been an ambassador to an important country, words in State
Depertment, or servers as a senior fellow in some research institution which study those issues.
(he was "unpaid intern" in Hudson institute" in 2011) What foreign policy advisor role for such a
guy ? He looks like a huckster to me.
Of cause Kieren
McCarth in her joy over the development is unable to contemplate this question.
Notable quotes:
"... Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed. ..."
"... he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less. ..."
"... the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role." ..."
"... And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election. ..."
"... For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 . ..."
Former Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos -- no, not that one -- has been
turned by ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as part of the latter's investigation into Trump
campaign team members. Mueller is probing allegations of obstruction of justice, money
laundering and other financial crimes, and collusion with Russian government agents seeking to
meddle with last year's US presidential election.
Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word
of this cooperation only emerged
today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed.
Coincidentally, Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort surrendered
himself this morning to Mueller at his nearest FBI office, as requested, to answer
allegations ranging from making false statements to acting as a foreign agent.
Ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates, also accused of conspiracy and money laundering,
handed himself in today, too. The indictment against the pair is here , and both deny any
wrongdoing.
Among the wealth of details in Papadopoulos' 14-page statement
[PDF] is the fact that he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian
government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the
Clinton campaign. Emails, no less.
"This isn't like he [the Professor]'s messaging me while I'm in April with Trump,"
Papadopoulos told the FBI. "I wasn't even on the Trump team." Except he was on the team in
April 2016. The Feds noted in their court paperwork: "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor
for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned
he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in
defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role."
And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a
go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with
damaging information on the Clinton campaign.
There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show
explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate
tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US
presidential election.
But let's take a quick look at Facebook.
For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is
not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up
the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of
you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database
searchable by the FBI. It's called
Section 702 .
Papadopoulos is obviously not a man well versed in spy craft. Something that becomes more
apparent when it's revealed the day after he was pulled in for questioning, he deleted his
entire Facebook account and started a new one. He also tried changing his phone number to
sidestep the Feds.
You can just imagine Mueller's team at their morning meeting: so how did the Papadopoulos
interview go yesterday? Well, this morning he deleted his Facebook account. Great, now we know
where to look.
... ... ...
"Virginia Governor – Gillespie vs. Northam" [
RealClearPolitics ]. The average of all polls: Northam 3.3% (Yesterday: 2.8%). Quinnipiac
weighs in, with Northam +17 (!!).
"Sanders, who gained his national following by running for the 2016 Democratic presidential
nomination, has refused to endorse the Democratic candidate, Ralph Northam, a mainstream progressive.
This signals the left-winger's determination to set ideological litmus tests for Democrats" [
Bloomberg ]. "Bannon, the former top strategist for President Donald Trump, is on a mission
to destroy the Republican Party establishment. In Virginia, he's helped pressure Republican Ed
Gillespie, a quintessential establishment figure, to embrace immigrant-bashing and race-baiting."
New Cold War
It's Manafort. And Papadopoulos. Two (2) documents were unsealed: Manafort's indictment, and
Papadopoulos's plea deal. Here they are:
1) Manafort: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort and Richard W. Gates, III (
PDF ). (The PDF, via DK, is a searchable PDF as opposed to a scan.)
2) Papadopoulos: United States of American v. George Papadoplous (
PDF ).
As readers know, I haven't been following the ins and outs of all this with complete attention,
but as best I can tell, the Manafort indictment is designed to get Manafort to flip, and the Papadopoulos
plea signals the inducement for him to do so.
Taking Manafort first, the indictment looks like an especially florid scheme to evade Federal
taxes on consulting fees paid to entities controlled by Manafort by
Viktor Yanukovych
and his Party of Regions , by laundering it through nominees in Cyprus into real estate (and
rugs). There's nothing in the indictment about election "meddling," and the Russians appear only
at a second remove (as the ultimate backers of the Party of Regions). The Feds are also indicting
Manafort for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government (in this case, Ukraine) which
would probably apply to half the Beltway, but never mind that.
Papadopoulos is juicier, from the Russki standpoint. Here is the salient paragraph, in which
Papadopoulos is charged with making false statements (rather a warning shot to the rest of the
players in this affair):
Now, the details of the Papadopoulos story are almost clownishly stupid -- a Russian "professor,"
Putin's "niece," Papadopoulos communicating with his Russki interlocutor via Skype (!) -- so it's
hard to know how serious an attempt this was. And if what the Russian professor says is true (we
don't know that), we don't know which email is at issue. Still, some Russians could have
been doing some "meddling," and some person in the Trump campaign knew about
it. Who else knew? Manafort? During the four months he headed Trump's campaign? Presumably, Mueller
can follow up the food chain. All this is, of course, very far from Clinton's original claim that
Trump is a Russian "puppet," a claim which moreover had and has the ultimate goal of treating
as treason advocacy for a
policy that is surely not prima facie crazed: That is, the idea that a Clintonite
cold war with Russia, or a hot proxy war in the Ukraine, might not be the best idea in the world.
Nevertheless, this was not a good day for the Trump administration.
"How to Interpret Robert Mueller's Charges Against Paul Manafort in the Russia Investigation"
[
WIRED ]. This is excellent (and recommended by
emptywheel , who I would link to except I'm getting CloudFlare errors from her site). This:
For all the talk of Russian collusion, there isn't really a federal crime that matches what
the press, critics, and Capitol Hill lawmakers have been calling collusion, a word that refers
legally to a narrow segment of antitrust law. And there's almost zero chance anyone will be
charged with treason, a charge that's only available to use against enemies in a declared war.
In other words, we can forget about the frothing and stamping of the parties which I can say
relieves me no end. And if readers with experience in complex Federal criminal prosecutions want
to chime in, great! Musical interlude
.
If the public reports are true, and there was a time where Paul Manafort was under a FISA
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] warrant before coming to the Trump campaign,
why is it the FBI never reached out to me as the campaign manager, never reached out to Donald
Trump and said "look, you might want to pause for a second and take a look before you bring
this guy on board as a volunteer to hunt delegates for you."
They never did that. He was under a FISA warrant, supposedly, both before and after his
tenure at the campaign and the FBI never notified the leading presidential candidate for a
major Republican Party race? Never notified him of a potential problem? This is a problem with
the FBI if you ask me.
I don't know if the FBI was required to do so.
Should they have informed a presidential candidate?
Hoping Tony Podesta loses a shoe close to whenever Midnight hits as this goes forward. I'm
told John is "ok". Tony, not so much. But the Podesta firm has always been thought of as a Democratic
shop, so the "both sides do it meme" may actually be proven out We'll see how this rolls. That
fact that this is all Ukraine right now makes me think we'll *never* figure out what really happened.
Which I guess (JFK ongoing redactions) goes without saying.
So, the question, begs, "Does Manafort as a bag man earn his fees?"
Because the reviews from his previous clients seem mixed, at best. Asking for a friend.
From Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or
in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
Giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies does not require a declaration of war. It's
also disturbingly vague.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
there hasn't been a case that I am aware of that didn't involve taking arms up against the
United States (Brown or the Whiskey Rebellion) or aiding a country we were at war with (Tokyo
rose).
No one is going to get convicted of treason, conspiracy against the United States is not treason,
and probably stems from his tax evasion charge.
Oddly, there are also state laws against treason. Either the Illinois or the Missouri law was
used against Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon denomination.
The McGuffin in the Papadopolous indictment is the Clinton e-mail messages. And what if they
emerge?
The article from Wired is enlightening because it takes a broad view of the FBI's goals and
the slowness of the U.S. criminal process. Emptywheel seems to think that it is all over, although
she admits that Papadopolous is a plain idiot. I fear that she is moving too fast. But then the
Watergate burglars were idiots, too.
All in all, I'd say let the indictments fall down like rain.
But I also recall that the Nixon saga was saved by clever old foxes like Sam Ervin and Judge
John Sirica, both of whom were highly underestimated by those in the know, you know. Yet I don't
see a Sam Ervin on the horizon. Enjoy the continuing constitutional crisis.
Mueller: Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'. I'll catch this bird for you, but it ain't
gonna be easy. Bad fish! Not like going down to the pond and chasing bluegills and tommycods.
This shark, swallow ya whole. Little shakin', little tenderizin', down you go. And we gotta do
it quick, that'll bring back the tourists, that'll put all your businesses on a payin' basis.
–The campaign doorkeeper is next. The son-in-law with no power. Just for being mishpokhe, poor
sob.
So there's no hope that, just like a scene from the Old Republic of Livy's first decade, Mueller
will round things up with
the case
for his own indictment ?
The veteran judge former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates
will appear in front of Monday afternoon has presided over a list of big-name defendants and
has experienced the criminal justice system firsthand -- when her son was convicted of dealing
heroin.
The case will then be handed over to an Obama-appointed judge who donated $1,000 to former
President Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.
Find it yourself. Just Google "Roger Ailes casting couch News Corp phone hacking".
The logical inference is that "the Professor" was claiming to have the lost private server
emails, since that's what was on everybody's minds at the time. Unfortunately, the internet is
abuzz with wild speculation at the moment that this somehow proves foreknowledge of the DNC leaks,
but as the quoted passage shows there is nothing in the language of the plea to support that conclusion.
Nevertheless, expect it to be somberly reported across mainstream platforms as the "smoking gun"
that it isn't.
Papadopoulos does not currently stand accused of doing anything wrong other than lying to the
FBI. He might have a more interesting story to tell but it's just speculation at this point. Reading
through the plea it looks like this may be nothing more than a dumbass who got taken in by a couple
of charlatans and then lied about it, Sure, he may have some deeper dirt, or not, I guess we'll
find out.
Isn't it ironic that the Ukraine pops up here, aka the USGOV's favorite Ukronazis and erstwhile
cat's paw vs Russia? It's as stupid as blaming Iran (Shia) for Al Qaeda and ISIS (Sunni). I look
forward to seeing the convolutions that the MSM will go through to prove Ukraine = Russia. Hmmm,
what other US politicians are known for their ties to the Ukraine?
So, fill in the blank with any one of 'our' elected representatives in D.C.
"_____________ faces a long list of charges that includes conspiracy against the United
States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, acting as an unregistered agent as a
foreign principal, making misleading statements in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration
Act, and seven counts of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. That's
a dozen in all.
Name one, come on, name a member of the House, or Senate who hasn't made them selves relatively
rich off lying and laundering, and influence peddling?
The total number of our elected 'leaders' that pass the smell test could fit in your average
mini van.
My Mom used to ask, "If everyone jumped off the bridge, would you do it?"
Anyone who knows me even the least bit knows I'm not making excuses for Trump Inc., I'm just
emphasizing how truly f*cked we are as concerns the mean level of ethics extant in our capital
city.
Finally reports about three successes in Mueller fishing expedition. If charges are proved,
Manafort is yet another corrupt player in Washington DC. Who milked the best friend of Joe Biden.
But the problem is that probably half of Washington lobbyists can be indicted on similar
charges.
After the indictment of Manafort and Gates was revealed on Monday morning, Trump tweeted :
"Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why
aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????"
The president added: "...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!"
Later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, played down the connection
between the three men and the Trump campaign. She said of Manafort and Gates's indictment:
"Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, presidential campaigns or any
campaign activity."
Sanders played down the role of Manafort, who joined the Trump campaign in March 2017 as
convention manager, focusing on winning delegates at the 2016 Republican convention, and was
promoted to campaign manager in June 2016 before resigning
in August over his links to Ukraine. She said: "Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the
delegate process, which he did, and was dismissed not too long after that."
She also insisted Papadopoulos's lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign had
"nothing to do with the activities of the campaign", and repeatedly dismissed Papadopoulos as
"a volunteer member on an advisory council".
... ... ...
The charges allege the two men worked extensively for political figures and parties in
Ukraine and laundered millions of dollars in payment for that work by channelling it through a
web of companies, mostly in the US and Cyprus. They are accused of constructing elaborate
schemes to hide their earnings from the US government, and failing to register the foreign
interests for which they were lobbying.
The indictment alleges $75m in payments flowed through offshore accounts, of which Manafort
laundered more than $18m to buy property, goods and services in the US, hiding the income from
the government. It says Gates transferred $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he
controlled.
... ... ...
Yanukovych, whose rule was marked by rampant corruption in his inner circle, fled to Russia
during the Maidan revolution in February 2014. In August last year, an alleged "black ledger"
surfaced in Kiev that appeared to show millions of dollars of under-the-table payments to
numerous Yanukovych allies, including Manafort.
Ukraine's National Anticorruption Bureau posted 22 payments to Manafort between 2007 and
2012 with various vague descriptions such as "sociology" or "services". The payments totalled
$12.7m. Manafort said he never received any illegal payments but the scandal prompted him to
resign from Trump's campaign.
... ... ...
Although Manafort did not formally assume control of the Trump campaign until 20 June, when
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was fired, Lewandowski said after his ejection: "Paul
Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since 7 April. That's a fact."
Manafort also played the decisive role in ensuring that Trump picked the Indiana governor,
Mike Pence, to be his running mate.
Mercouris weighs in on the Manafort indictment, wherein I agree with his initial
assessment:
"It comes after what was in all other respects a disastrous two weeks for the true
believers in the Russiagate conspiracy with the revelation that the Democratic National
Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed the 'research' which resulted in the
Trump Dossier, and with mounting claims that (as I had previously suspected) the now
notorious meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
was indeed a sting set up by Fusion GPS, the intermediary company used by the DNC and the
Hillary Clinton campaign to fund the Trump Dossier.
"In light of this there has to be some suspicion that the decision to press charges
against Manafort and one of his aides now was intended at least in part to distract attention
from the revelations and to regain control of the Russiagate narrative, which has been
increasingly falling apart.
All the while Mueller spins his wheels, the really big criminals in this fiasco remain the
Clintons, Obamas, and staff that worked abetting their crimes.
Might be a wwya put swipe under the table Steele dociier. Also what is interesting is that
Bill and Hillary Clinton,
The Bonnie and Clyde of US polit , walk free, Manafort, being a small fish in a large pond of
international corruption, was caught in the net and is under arrest... They want him to talk.
Manafort will be under a lot of pressure to produce evidence of any Trump/Putin connection.
The special counsel's office considers Manafort a flight risk, and lawyers in Mueller's
office argued before Judge Deborah Robinson on Monday afternoon, citing the seriousness of the
charges and the extent of Manafort's ties abroad. The FBI took possession of Manafort's
passport yesterday. In a statement to reporters following the hearing, Manafort's lawyer, Kevin
Downing, called the charges against his client "ridiculous."
"There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian
government," Downing told reporters after Manafort's court appearance.
"Mr. Manafort represented pro-European Union campaigns for the Ukrainians. And in that, he
was seeking to further democracy, and to help the Ukraine come closer to the United States and
the EU."
"The claim that maintaining offshore accounts to bring all your funds into the United States
as a scheme to conceal from the United States government is ridiculous," he continued.
Downing called Mueller's prosecution of Manafort using the Foreign Agents Registration Act
"a very novel theory," point out that the government has only brought charges under the law six
times since 1966.
According to
the Hill , Manafort retained Downing, a former Department of Justice official, in August.
Downing is known for his work representing clients facing complex financial investigations.
* * *
Update: Democrat Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence committee, said
the indictments open up "new lines of inquiry" in the Russia probe, even after reports surfaced
earlier this week that many Republican members of Schiff's committee are trying to wind it
down.
Today's indictments of Manafort and Gates, and Papadopoulos' guilty plea are key
developments in Russia probe. Here's why: pic.twitter.com/ELNg3LPoe3
Update: Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has confirmed that the White House has no
intention of firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She added that the role of George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser during the campaign who pleaded guilty to obstruction
earlier this month, was "extremely limited."
Sanders reiterated that the Manafort indictment has "nothing to do with us," noting that his
alleged criminal activities took place before he joined the campaign. When asked if the
president now regrets hiring Manafort, she said she hadn't asked him about his feelings on the
matter. She also played down Papadopoulos's involvement with the campaign was minimal, saying
he met with a group of foreign policy advisers one time, and had his named included on a list
of advisers given to the Washington Post.
Sanders added that Manafort was hired to lead the campaign's delegate push ahead of the
convention, and was let go shortly after.
Did the FBI screw up in their search of Manafort's home?
"...we were immediately drawn to the revelation that evidence was collected that may not
have been covered by the warrant. That's a serious development, and one that Manafort's
attorneys will no doubt seize upon. But, is it necessarily illegal? Did the agents do
anything wrong? It's not clear. It certainly could raise some serious constitutional issues
that could taint the investigation."
Keep this fucker in mind too...Neil Kornze. Below is an excerpt from his Bio...
Before coming the Bureau of Land Management, Kornze worked as a Senior Advisor to U.S.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In his work for Senator Reid, which spanned from
early 2003 to early 2011, he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable
energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife.
Kornze has also served as an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and
Georgia and is co-author of an article in The Oxford Companion to American Law.
Tangled webs and pieces of shit. Ya think Mueller will be charging this bastard? No, me
either..
Mueller won't, my opinion on him is he's nothing more than a hatchet man to chop Trump.
Sessions should though. Some people still like the guy but I just don't trust him with the
shit he's done so far, like coming out and praising this Myhre. I know you read Redoubt News
but I wish more people did because they're doing a good job.
In a surprising ruling, Judge Navarro allowed disgraced BLM agent Dan Love to be
questioned for a full day on Monday. Love was obviously upset at the officials in the * DOJ
overriding his authority as the Incident Commander.
"The primary responsibility of the special counsel" is " to investigate Russian
interference with the 2016 presidential election "
Furthermore, Mannafort and even Trump himself had no idea he would be running for
president 5 years ago.
Um, the Special Council is way off target...by miles and years. Mannafort et.al. should
get what they deserve but the collusion is all Podesta/Hillary/Fusion GPS/Crowdstrike
et.al..
The Special Council needs to get crackin...and back on track
A pardon shuts down Mueller's investigation. This is a witch hunt and like all witch hunts
guilt is ascribed to the suspect by simply being named. So there is no justice here. This is
all partisan politics. The simple fact is that there are so many laws on the books that
honest people unwittingly break the law every day.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.html
This is a labyrinth that has no end. This is a fishing expedition and Muller is casting a
net far and wide and he will find a number of people who inadvertently broke the law. People
like Martha Stewart come to mind. James B. Comey burned Martha Stewart at the stake of
self-righteousness for lying to the FBI, but this same moral crusader found no wrong doing in
Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Clearly as far as the FBI is concerned, Martha was a real
paragon of evil while Hillary is the most altruistic person on the planet. Either the
Republicans get behind Trump and pull the trigger on the Clinton crime syndicate or they lose
the next election.
" In August 2016,
Manafort's connections to former Ukrainian PresidentViktor Yanukovych and his
Party of Regions
drew national attention in the USA, where it was reported that Manafort may have illegally
received $12.7 million in off-the-books funds from the Party of Regions. [29] On August
17, 2016, Donald Trump received his first security briefing. [30] Also, on August 17,
2016, the New York
Times reported on an internal staff memorandum from Manafort stating that Manafort would
"remain the campaign chairman and chief strategist, providing the big-picture, long-range
campaign vision". [31] However, two days
later, Trump announced his acceptance of Manafort's resignation from the campaign after
Stephen Bannon and
Kellyanne Conway
took on senior leadership roles within that campaign. [32][33] "
So a scumbag lobbyist got caught laundering money over many years BEFORE (and continuing
during and apparently unrelated to) Trump's campaign... and then exited the campaign. Unless
there is direct evidence of the Trump campaign using Manafort as a conduit for collusion with
the Russians (and I know of no evidence for that) this is irrelevant to charges of Trump
campaign Russian collusion.
But those facts will NOT be emphasized by the MSM.
AND speculation will persist that Mueller will use his Manafort leverage to drop more
shoes...for YEARS.
I just wonder if this little charade of Mueller's isn't revenge for the fact that
Yanukovich turned on the US and sided with Russia. Boy the deep state and the Pentagon sure
must have wanted Crimea really bad. Manafort seems to be the point guy.
Less the point guy and more the scapegoat. TPTB are pissed off at Lil Yanu for turning
coat on them and siding with Putin and they are pissed at Trump for getting elected. So they
figure they can try to ameliorate their frustration at these two disses with one scapegoat.
Ala Manafort. Look up Manaforts history. He has been doing this slimly kind of lobbyist for
3rd world and former Soviet satellite state strong men for three decades and for that same
period of time he has not been paying his taxes on there earnings (i.e. money laundering).
But so has the likes of the Podesta Brothers, Clinton, Pat Robertson and the like.
Unfortunetely for Manafort he step into the scapegoat pit for as the TPTB was eager to
display its anger throgh a ritual cutting of a political head sacrifice when he stepped in to
help Trump's campaign gather delegates.
However, what is evident, or what should become evident, there are king makers, and there
are bag men, and they are employed by ALL swamp creatures with equal zeal. The point here is,
this shit goes way beyond what is stated, as always. These snakes slither in the same swamp,
and not one among them has clean hands ...
So for all these dirty little charades, these stage props of "justice", the "collusion"
has been a collusion, and direct assault against the very interests of the American people,
for many, many moons ..
Yanukovych was democratically elected. He would be deeply shocked that he worked together
with a "scumbag lobbyist". Same for Trump, who would never have assumed Manaford had a shady
history. Never. Who could have known this? Not Nobody! Not No How!
The answer here is not everyone else does it why single out him, but instead time for
partisan Mueller's team to start investigating all the Republican Swamp rats and hold them
all to the same standards, except for those members of Mueller's team starting with Mueller
who are guilty themselves. Appoint a second equally viscous Republican Partison to
investigate and prosecute Hillary, Bill, Obama, Holder, DWS, Pelosi and the rest of the
Democrat Swamp Rats. We will probably need to appoint some additonal Federal Judges because
the courts are going to be very busy and swift justice is the best justice.
I listen to the opposition (PBS) in the morning for an hour while showering and getting to
work. Still talking Trump Russia collusion every other story and not a fucking word about
Hildebeasts and Muellers Uranium dealings.
All of that is just red meat for the plebs. It's not hard to spend that much on fine rugs.
And every fine home in Georgetown and the UES is stuffed to the gills with them.
They also get quite a laugh getting Joe Schmoe worked up about how much someone's haircut
cost. Nearly a million in clothes? A vintage Patek Phillipe watch and 2 tailored suits and
you're there. Or for the woman, a fews
enormous pearl necklaces and a Chanel suit.
The collusion by the MSM to keep this story from the public conscious is truly stunning.
Any MSM source other than Fox on this issue in the USA and you are a mushroom.
And international. Nothing in the UK in the past ten days since the dossier funding and
the Uranium-1 informant (who is going to personally buttfuck Mueller from every angle)
stories broke. The Telegraph's* last Hillary story was a fucking HRC through the ages fashion
piece.
And all the usual insidious cunts like Podesta, HRC and DWS sharing a houseboat on a river
in Egypt.
*I would personally like to inform any journo working for the DT that you are a spineless
worm. A piece of morally corrupted parasitic shit. Every single motherfucking one of you.
Scum assisting in making 1984 a reality.
Taxpayers need to cover the cost of security for Swampians in an era of increased
publicity and fast-paced communications. But Swampians of all types need to be banned from
lobbying and other money-making activities in foreign countries related to their time in
office, such as profitable not for profits with political donors in foreign countries, sales
of bomb-making material to foreign countries and accepting six-figure-to-multi-million-dollar
speechmaking fees from foreign interests that are interwoven with governments. These are
opportunities spawned by their time in office. All they have to do to make it legal is to
disclose it; it is just fine for government officials and their associates to make enormous
amounts of money off of catering to foreign interests unless they fail to disclose.
Short of a sea change in the way money is made due to automation, globalism is going to
keep sinking The Republic, with elite working families saying they are doing all of it for
average working families in America. Sell it with a fake-feminist, mommy-baby-concern theme,
and you can do any nefarious thing you want, whether in high or low places. Visit a local,
$10-per-hour, crony-mom call center or a momma-gang corporate back office for the rougher,
downscale version.
I am beginning to root for the robots. It is probably the only way we will see any real
change. Advances in technology in the pre-automation age let these elites operate businesses
and other institutions more easily around the globe to the detriment of The Republic and
their own country's widespread prosperity.
Maybe, a global, robotic workforce will return us to elected governments, where the
voters' interests are actually represented, rather than lobbyist-fed, elected representatives
representing the interests of American and foreign elites who are invested in near-slave
production around the globe, so-called emerging markets, war clean-up or lucrative NGOs.
Maybe, we we will see less lucrative-for-elites intervention in foreign countries under
the brand of helping mommies and babies around the globe that is
government/corporate-financed, with many of the financiers being global dictators.
Maybe, further advances in technology will nullify these globalist pathways to riches for
political elites, making it easier for the Founders' values to resurface. When robots are
doing most of the work, these near-slave labor and consumer markets abroad will be less
tantalizing, leaving only things like land, uranium deposits, oil and other geographic gems
to attract elite attention away from building up the USA.
I'm generic and any corruption that gets weeded out is fine by me. Yes, there is plenty
more but I will take whatever, from wherever as long as it is rooted out.
It must be autumn harverst time for sexual perverts and corrupt assholes. They seem to be
all coming out/forced out? Put them all in the same cells.
ATTN: Forward the following everyone & their mothers.
Published on Oct 24, 2017FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds exposes Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's conflict of interest in pursuing General Michael Flynn's case due to his direct
involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks'
criminal operations within the United States, and demands that he steps down.
Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary
supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before
they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels.
Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.
I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections
across the country to fill the vacant seats.
Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary
supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before
they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels.
Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.
I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections
across the country to fill the vacant seats.
It's Manafort for not filing his taxes properly. But no charges related to "Russia
election meddling". 6 months into this fake investigation Mueller has got nothing related to
that..
Mueller is a deep state swamp creature and dishonest. He will now push Manafort to roll on
the President and manufacture a bogus crime. Watch.
Meanwhile, Hillary skates despite an mountain of evidence of actual crimes!
This is priceless. So the Buzzfeed scoop was actually legit? Manafort and thirteen
"suspicious" wire transfers? That were already looked at by the F.B.I.?? Five YEARS ago???
THIS is the BOMBSHELL BREAKING NEWS coming from the great Russian Collusion investigation???
I thought for sure the story was either a diversion or a bad joke. Dear lord. To call this
farce of an investigation a dog and pony show would be to cast dispersions upon all the
legitimate dog and pony shows throughout history. This is like a bad SNL skit. From the 90's.
With Jim Breuer as Goat Boy.
Dems.....you have been soooooo played! L.O.L. But PLEASE....please, please PLEASE.....keep
waiting for that silver bullet that will take down Trump to magically appear. That will
ensure you are COMPLETELY irrelevant in 2018.
How about we pin the execution on the Mueller for his cover up role in 9/11? He was acting
director of the inside deep state attack on the US that the FBI was clearly involved with as
well as the CIA and co.
Mueller belongs with his Bush and Cheney cohorts and all who were absolutely involved in
the 3 towers demolition destruction and mass murder of Americans.
The US no longer exists people, the government is completely over run and if you think you
still have a country... find yourself laughing at yourself in the mirror!
It's all a circus of madness now! Babylon will laughably fall, it's already begun.
This 16 second clip says it all about our US Special Prosecutors and those in control of
all of DC.
Hundreds of millions to have a 9/11 actor serve justice in finding a Russian collusion
where NONE exists. I hope Manafort shoves their noses in a big steaming pile of Dick Cheney's
steaming shit.
The real action is just beginning because they (Mueller and his party) think Manafort will
"flip" on Trump in order to get out of his problem with this indictment. Of course every
little retard liberal will think this is about Russian influence on the election even though
it clearly will not be. Half of this country is living in an alternate reality and that will
not end well for all of us.
According to the left, Trump is about to go to prison. According to the right, Hillary is
about to go to prison. I feel like very few are aware of both possibilities.
I see news networks saying Manafort could turn on others to implicate them. However it
seems to me, if that was the case, wouldnt they have already offered that deal to him before
charging him?
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence
Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her
remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic
that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be
recalled."
She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this
document.
"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not
know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more
going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses,"
she told CBS' Face the Nation.
She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC,
should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that
Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged
coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.
On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered
in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week,
citing sources familiar with the matter.
The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising
relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published
online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of
deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free
Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The
alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was
taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the
expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The
DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and
reported $66,500 for research consulting.
Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence
Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its
investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something
should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US
president put it.
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so
much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....
Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion
between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one
who really colluded with Russia.
"... The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in response to requests by President Bill Clinton." ..."
It covers over approximately two decades of declassified documents, from the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), White House, and United States
Department of State, regarding American covert activities in Chile. It is based on more than
24,000 previously classified documents that were released as part of the Chilean
Declassification Project during the Clinton administration, between June 1999 and June
2000.
The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction
category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has
gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it
as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the
Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's
election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists
of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in
response to requests by President Bill Clinton."
The inclusion of key source documents allows the reader not only to corroborate Kornbluh's
findings, but to acquire a flavor of the extent of U.S. covert activities within Chile, and to
understand the tenor of conversation in the White House and CIA regarding Salvador Allende's
presidency. While the U.S. claimed to support Chile and its democratic election process, the
documents show intricate and extensive attempts first to prevent Allende from being elected,
and then to overthrow him with a coup d'état. The coup d'état required first
removing the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces (General René Schneider),
who opposed military interference in political situations; he was assassinated by CIA-funded
coup plotters (retired General Roberto Viaux and active duty General Camilo Valenzuela). Once
Augusto Pinochet took power, his human rights violations were tolerated, even though the U.S.
knew that thousands of people had been detained and American citizens Charles Horman and Frank
Teruggi murdered. The CIA fostered an extensive cover-up of its involvement in fomenting the
coup, including dissembling to the Church Committee. The White House also withheld key
documents. Subsequently, the role of the US in this period of history was not correctly
understood based solely on the findings released at that time. Furthermore, extensive black
propaganda, especially in El Mercurio, shaped world perceptions of Allende, essentially
painting him as a Communist pawn and portraying the wreckage of the Chilean economy as due to
his decisions. In contrast, the declassified documents show that Richard Nixon enacted an
"invisible blockade" in concert with American multinational corporations and international
banking organizations, which were pressured to withhold loan refinancing. Consequently, much of
the history that has been written without access to these documents may need to be reexamined,
as Kornbluh discusses in the book's introduction:
Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode, and
scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as Project FUBELT, the
CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of
1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief René Schneider; U.S. strategy and
operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup;
the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret
police, DINA, CIA ties to DINA chief Manuel Contreras, Operation Condor, the terrorist
car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C., the murder by burning of
Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas, and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to
civilian rule.
The inclusion of key source documents provide a rare behind-the-scenes view of covert regime
change in operation. Key documents from the CIA, United States National Security Council (NSC),
White House, DIA, and State Department were declassified in the year 2000. The more than 24,000
records correspond to an average of about three records per day gathered over two decades and
Kornbluh's analysis was not complete and in print until 2003.
Thank you, I really enjoyed this documentary, it summarizes what many latinoamericans know or
sense, in fact the same type of interventions have taken place in Argentina, Colombia,
Panama, Mexico, Granada, Bolivia, Cuba, not to mention many other countries in the rest of
the planet. It's pure modern imperialism.
"... May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying. ..."
"... The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information." ..."
"... This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role. ..."
"... He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true. ..."
"... Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it. ..."
"... In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo. ..."
In a series if tweets this
morning , President Trump has exposed some of the narratives that much of the mainstream
media seems loathed to touch...
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation
on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus
deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more.
Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia "collusion," which doesn't exist.
The Dems are using this terrible (and bad for our country) Witch Hunt for evil politics, but
the R's are now fighting back like never before.
There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO
SOMETHING!
And while Democrats and their mouthpieces continues to try and focus attention on the
unverified frivolous claims within the dossier - as opposed to the illegalities of the
dossier's production, collusion, and exhibition - The Wall Street
Journal's Holman Jenkins warns then that the Trump Dossier dam is breaking ...
A U.S. political party applied to a hostile power for lurid stories about a domestic
opponent.
'Tis the season of tossing out nondisclosure agreements. Victims and employees of Harvey
Weinstein clamor to be released from their NDAs so they can talk about his abuse. Perkins Coie,
the Washington law firm for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign, showed the way
by voluntarily releasing Fusion GPS from its duty to remain mum on Democrats who funded the
notorious Trump dossier.
May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their
Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists
from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying.
The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days
before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter
to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information."
Mr. Reid knows how the responsible press works. Implausible, scurrilous and unsupported
allegations are not reportable, but a government official making public reference to such
allegations is reportable.
Mr. Reid, though, failed to mention his party's role in concocting the allegations, much
less that the manner of its doing so left him no reason to suppose the charges were anything
but tall tales spun by Russian intelligence officials in response to danglings of Democratic
money.
This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for
lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role.
Let's also hear from Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed on TV to have "circumstantial" and "more than circumstantial" evidence of Trump
collusion with Russia. In the event, what he delivered in a committee hearing was a litany of routine, innocuous
business and diplomatic contacts between Trump associates and Russian citizens, interspersed
with claims from the Trump dossier.
He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a
D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown,
unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the
stories were true.
Mr. Schiff, a Harvard Law graduate, will know the phrase is not our coinage. "Reckless
disregard" is the standard by which the Supreme Court says, even in a country that bends over
backward to protect the press at the expense of public figures, the press can be held liable
for defamatory untruths about a public figure.
Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of
surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a
foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how
reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the
sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when
he knew it.
Finally, let us hear from James Comey.
The Trump dossier was reckless and irresponsible in the extreme, but only consequential
after Election Day. It didn't prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president.
In the new spirit of non-non-disclosure, it's time for Mr. Comey to tell us about the
Russian intelligence scam that may really have changed the election outcome.
In closed hearings, he reportedly
acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what
is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian
intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo.
This led directly to Mr. Comey's second intervention, reopening the case 11 days before
Election Day, a shocking development that appears now to have
moved enough votes into Mr. Trump's column to account for his win.
At the time, the press was all too happy to
blame Bill Clinton for his wife's loss when Mr. Comey, for nonclassified consumption, cited
Mr. Clinton's tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch as the reason for his
intervention.
The press is silent now.
The new story satisfies nobody's agenda, and only makes the FBI look foolish. Mr. Trump is
not eager to hear his victory portrayed as an FBI-precipitated accident. Democrats cling to
their increasingly washed-out theory of Trump-Russia collusion.
And yet, if Mr. Comey's antic intervention in response to Russian disinformation
inadvertently led to Mr. Trump becoming president, this was the most consequential outcome by
far.
* * *
President Trump has the final word however, asking (and answering a key question) - All of
this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts
& Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!
All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic
Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!
Manafort dealing with Yanukovich were long before 2016 elections. So this is king of
"overextension" of Muller mandate (which was never completely defined anyway to allow digging
durt)
Notable quotes:
"... Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by ex-Clinton staffers. ..."
"... Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or label these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars. ..."
As speculation mounts that Paul Manafort might be the target of the
sealed indictments reportedly approved by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury,
Buzzfeed is reporting new details of Mueller's probe into Manafort, seemingly a hint that
he will in fact be one of, if not the only, target taken into custody tomorrow.
The FBI's investigation of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, includes a
keen focus on a series of suspicious wire transfers in which offshore companies linked to
Manafort moved more than $3 million all over the globe between 2012 and 2013.Much of the money
came into the United States.
So back in 2012 Manafort was working for the Podesta group. Not Trump. And that assclown
Robert Muller has spent far more than $3 million on this political witch hunt. What a fucking
joke. Is that the best they got?
" ... notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by
the Kremlin ... ."
Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that
Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by
ex-Clinton staffers.
Unfortunately for Messr. Yanukovych and the people of Ukaraine, he decided not to do
America's bidding after all, but instead to sensibly seek trade relations with Russia, which
made sense financially, geographically, and socially.
At which point (need I say?), he fell out of favor with his American backers and was
replaced in an American-funded coup by American backed Nazis.
Manafort is too close to the Podesta Group. Mueller is despicable and desperate...now to
bait a trap for the President. Kushner, a couple of russian flunkirs...and daddy's girl are the
best cheese.
Yeah, same ole shit, bring an indictment against someone for something that happened YEARS
BEFORE the 2016 election (which is not within the scope of Grand Inquisitor Muellers purview)
in the hopes he can get Manafort to lie/impugn or otherwise implicate Trump on "Russian
collusion". So, they got nuffin and this proves it.
Time for Mueller to be fired.
Or better yet , put the hapless Mueller's sorry ass on the stand and question him about why
he stopped investigating the Uranium One deal after getting some low-grade actors and what
exactly were the circumstances of him being used as "a bagman" for stolen uranium
;-)
Tony Podesta and Paul Manefort had close ties. This rabbit hole runs deep and wide, and will
prove that the concept of an American bilateral political system is a false narrative designed
to divide and rule.
"The Podesta Group was one of several firms that worked on a Manafort-led campaign for a
nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). The campaign promoted
Ukraine's image in the West and was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, a pro-Russian
political party in Ukraine that was previously led by former Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych"
BLOW BACK onto the Dems and Clintonistas.... let's hope. AND the entirety of Congress, and
ALL the Ukranian meddlers if all the suspicious transfers are investigated.
Absolutely, if they are interested in 2016 US election meddling by Ukrainians, then there is
no point looking at Yanukovych or the formerly ruling Party of Regions. Long gone by then,
banned from Parliament by their political opponents.
If after 5 months this is all they have ... a 4 year old wire transfer for something ... thw
WSJ will print on Tuesday "IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE???" Expect Mueller crucifiction shortly
afterward.
Manafort is the poptop on the can of suspicious transfer worms about to be opened. 3 mil is
chicken feed, but the precedence is priceless. Lots of loose bowels tomorrow. lol
It hardly makes sense to investigate incidents between 2012 and 2013, in an investigation
focusing on the year 2016. However, there are some other possibilities. If they know they
have Manafort nailed for these charges, this could give Muelller leverage to make a deal with
Manafort for dirty info he may have on Trump.
Trump, of course, could pardon Manafort, but, as the article stated, the State of NY is
also going after Manafort. Trump can't pardon a state case. Additionally, NY State is also in
discovery for the Trump emoluments case with Judge George Daniels (Obama appointee), and
Trump will be unable to pardon any possible witnesses or alleged co-defendants (friends and
family).
No question about it, this is a fishing expedition, and the Special Prosecutor is sending
his fleet of fishing trawlers from sea to shining sea.
Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or
label
these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and
millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax
violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars.
"... Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing. ..."
Even as the Trump administration disintegrates – with the
President publicly quarrelling with his Secretary of State, and his Chief of Staff forced to
deny he is about to resign – the scandal which more than anything else has defined this
Presidency has disintegrated into total lunacy.
Consider these facts:
1) The Mueller investigation
Just a few weeks ago the media was full of reports of how Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation was "closing in" on the President and his campaign team. The focus of media
interest was on an early morning search in July of the house of Paul Manafort, the campaign
professional who at one time acted as the Trump campaign's chairman, with
lurid headlines that he was about to be indicted, though it was never made clear for
what.
Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come
up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of
indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing.
In all other respects a curtain of silence has fallen on Mueller's investigation, a strong
sign that after its failure to "break" Manafort it no longer has a clear strategy of what to
do.
"... At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received." ..."
"... The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election. ..."
"... As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides ..."
"... The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies. ..."
"... Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller. ..."
The central mystery involving what has become known as Russiagate is the lack of any real
understanding of what exactly took place. It is alleged in some circles that Moscow somehow
interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and might even have tilted the result in favor of
candidate Donald Trump. Others suspect that the tale is politically motivated in an attempt to
exonerate Hillary Clinton and find Donald Trump or his associates guilty of collusion with an
unfriendly foreign government.
Caught in between are those who are not completely convinced by either narrative and are
demanding evidence to confirm that there was a sequence of events involving Russia and various
American individuals that demonstrates both intent and actual steps taken which would lend
credibility to such a hypothesis. So far, in spite of a year and a half of highly intrusive
investigation, there has been remarkably little evidence of anything apart from the
unchallengeable fact that someone took files from John Podesta as well as the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computers and the stolen information wound up at WikiLeaks.
One of the most damaging revelations made regarding Donald Trump consisted of the so-called
"Dossier," which had been compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
Initial reports suggested that Steele's investigation was commissioned initially by a
Republican opponent of Trump, possibly Jeb Bush, and later it was possibly continued by someone
connected to the Democratic Party. This genesis of the document was widely reported at the time
but no "names" were attached to the claims even though the identities of those who had
commissioned the work were known to some journalists who had uncovered
additional details relating to the investigation.
The drafts of some parts of the document itself
began to make the rounds in Washington during the summer of 2016, though the
entire text was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was reportedly still
being worked on in June by Steele and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by him
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director
James Comey for verification, which he agreed to do.
The Steele Dossier contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's
connection to the Vladimir Putin regime as a businessman who sought and obtained significant,
and possibly illegal, favors on real estate transactions from the Russian government. On a more
personal level, it also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades with prostitutes at
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. Few of the allegations could be verified as the report relied
on mostly unnamed, unidentifiable sources. On a more serious note, the dossier concluded with
an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russian intelligence services and could
be blackmailed.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with
Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own
campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
wrote to FBI head James Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's
presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative
Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the
Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump
to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns
out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC,
but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm
Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between
on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election.
As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for
clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a
lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information
is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were
intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole
product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client
interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which
the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of
the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire
document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.
The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the
point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian
angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump
has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the
active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies.
The president also comes across as credible vis-à-vis his critics because of what has
become evident since the dossier was surfaced. The clearly politically motivated multiple
investigations carried out so far in which no rock has been unturned have come up with
absolutely nothing, either in the form of criminal charges or in terms of actual collusion with
a foreign government. And, one might add, there has been little in the way of evidence to
sustain the charge that Russia sought to influence the election and might even have succeeded
in doing so. But there is one thing new that we do know now: Russiagate began within the
Clinton Campaign headquarters.
Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20
years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.
Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller.
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states
surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about
fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case
For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law .
. . "
Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since
Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent,
unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.
Yes, Trump's following
that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in
American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate
that condemnation.
http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/
I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many
people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.
BTW this is yet another leak. Now about grand jury deliberations. And of cause it comes from
CNN
What is
interesting is that in view of troubles for Hillary with DNC financing of Steele
dossier it looks like the deep state switched to the counterattack mode. And Mueller task
was and is to dig dirt, that's why 2013 events are now coming to the focus. How they are related
to Presidential elections is unclear.
But fishing expeditions against officials are typically successful. As Lavrentiy Beria used to
say "Show Me The Man, And I'll Show You The Crime"
Notable quotes:
"... "I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ... They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it." ..."
"... (Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time of publication.) ..."
A Washington, D.C., federal grand jury has approved a set of initial charges stemming from
the Robert S. Mueller III-led investigation into Russia's meddling into the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. CNN was
the first to report that the former FBI director turned special counsel could take the
first individuals into custody as soon as Monday.
While all indications are that President Donald Trump has yet to be interviewed by Mueller,
there's a list of his top 2016 campaign aides, current and former White House aides and
longtime confidants who could be rounded up by Mueller's team early next week.
Here are five [possible] indictments and related outcomes that are possible then:
Paul Manafort is indicted. We know that the former Trump campaign chairman has plenty of
ties to Russia and other former clients in the region, including former senior Ukrainian
leaders.
Michael Flynn is indicted. The retired Army three-star general was once a well-respected
military intelligence officer. He rose through the ranks to lead the Pentagon's top espionage
entity, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Then, former aides and confidants
have told NPR and other outlets, something changed.
Flynn became enamored with the kind of conservative conspiracy theories that helped power
Trump to the White House. The longtime soldier, who had gone into the consulting world after
being fired from the DIA by President Barack Obama , became a leading national
security and foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump.
"We believe this paper trail must be pursued to answer the gravest question of all: Did Gen.
Flynn seek to change the course of our country's national security to benefit the same private
interests he previously promoted, whether by advising President Trump, interacting with foreign
officials, or influencing other members of the Trump administration?" House Oversight ranking
member Elijah E.
Cummings wrote in a recent letter to panel Chairman Trey Gowdy that featured nearly 20
other Democratic signatures.
Carter Page is indicted. The Trump-connected energy consultant came under scrutiny in 2016
for alleged questionable ties to Putin's government while he was part of the Trump
campaign.
Though Page has denied any nefarious links to Russian officials, he has informed the Senate
Intelligence Committee that
he plans to plead the Fifth if called to testify in that panel's Russia probe. He is slated
to appear before the House Intelligence Committee next week but has given no indication if he
will be cooperative in that investigation.
After nearly three hours of testimony before Senate Intelligence staffers on July 24,
Kushner stood outside the White House and denied colluding with Russian officials during the
2016 campaign, saying all of his actions were both legal and proper.
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. wrote during the
email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a British-born entertainment publicist who met his father
when he was trying to do business in Russia. Their email exchange began on June 3, 2016, about
a month and a half before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination.
If Mueller is targeting the commander in chief, going after his son or son-in-law this early
would be a way of getting Trump's attention.
"No, not at all," Trump told reporters during an impromptu Oct. 16 Rose Garden press
conference when asked if he was considering firing Mueller from the special counsel post.
But that was before the president, who values and rewards loyalty, was facing the first wave
of indictments in the Russia probe. And Trump made his disgust clear that day about the ongoing
DOJ investigation.
"I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he
said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have
a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ...
They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it."
There is a modern precedent, though controversial and presidency-ending, for such a
move.
The modern standard bearer is Richard Nixon, the president whom Trump's critics often cite
when pointing to his rhetoric and missteps. The so-called Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 went
down after Nixon's insistence that the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate cover-up
be fired and ended with the top two Justice Department officials quitting. Nixon eventually
resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee reported articles of impeachment but
before the full House could vote.
(Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were
asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time
of publication.)
"... Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order. ..."
"... The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. ..."
Washington (CNN) A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the
first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources
briefed on the matter.
The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans
were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources
said. It is unclear what the charges are. A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined
to comment. The White House also had no comment, a senior administration official said Saturday
morning. Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the
2016 election. Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made
aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to
people familiar with the matter.
Little chance Congress can kill Mueller's funding On Friday, top lawyers who are helping to
lead the Mueller probe, including veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the
court room at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in the Russia
investigation. Reporters present saw a flurry of activity at the grand jury room, but officials
made no announcements. Shortly after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director
James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took the reins of a
federal investigation that Comey first opened in July 2016 in the middle of the presidential
campaign. Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise
directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order.The special
counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the
investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates'
financial ties to Russia. Mueller's
team has also examined foreign lobbying conducted by former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and others. His team has issued
subpoenas for documents and testimony to a handful of figures, including some people close to
Manafort, and others involved in the Trump Tower meeting between Russians and campaign
officials. Last year, the Comey-led investigation secured approval from the secret court that
oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the communications of Manafort,
as well as former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as part of the investigation into Russian
meddling. In addition to Mueller's probe, three committees on Capitol Hill are conducting their
own investigations.
CNN's Marshall Cohen, Mary Kay Mallonee, Laura Robinson and Ryan Nobles contributed to
this report.
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states
surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about
fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case
For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law .
. . "
Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since
Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent,
unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.
Yes, Trump's following
that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in
American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate
that condemnation.
http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/
I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many
people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.
CNN
reported Friday night that Mueller has filed charges in sealed indictments. It is currently not
known what the charges are or who they have been filed against, but CNN reported that multiple people
could be facing charges.
Those affected by the indictments reportedly may be taken into custody by as early as Monday.
The news comes as a number of Republicans have been skeptical of Mueller's ability to be impartial
in the investigation. Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona
told Fox News Friday that "the federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by
his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey."
The indictments could affect former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. In September, a report
from the New York Times
alleged that Mueller told Manafort that he would be indicted. However, there is no indication
Manafort is involved yet.
Hillary
Clinton 's presidential campaign was accused of breaking election rules Wednesday as she
and fellow Democrats faced fallout from the disclosure that her campaign and party operatives
paid for research used in a salacious anti- Trump dossier.
President Trump called the revelation "a
disgrace," and the head of the House investigative committee said he wants
to know whether the FBI relied on the
dossier in its counterintelligence work.
"It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier," Mr. Trump told reporters at the
White House. "The Democrats always denied it. Hillary Clinton always denied it.
I think it's a disgrace. It's a very sad commentary on politics in this country."
The dossier, first reported on late in the presidential campaign and eventually published in
its entirety by BuzzFeed after the election, contained a series of unsubstantiated and often
salacious accusations against Mr. Trump , including supposed
contacts between his associates and Russian officials.
The 35-page document was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by
research firm Fusion GPS.
Law firm Perkins Coie, which handled legal work for the Clinton campaign, admitted Tuesday
that it paid Fusion "to perform a variety of research services" as part of its work for
Mrs.
Clinton .
... ... ...
Operatives for Mr. Trump 's chief opponents during
the Republican primary have denied involvement in the dossier, but Mr. Trump said it was a
possibility.
"Yes, it might have started with the Republicans early on in the primaries. I think I would
know, but let's find out who it is," he told reporters. "If I were to guess, I have one name in
mind."
But given the revelations about Democrats' involvement and fresh investigations into a
uranium deal with a Russian firm approved by the Obama administration, Mr. Trump said the Russia
controversy has "turned around" on the Democrats.
"This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it very
badly," he said. "They didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it's
turning out that the whole hoax is turned around."
... ... ...
House Speaker
Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, accused the executive branch of stonewalling Congress from
obtaining documents related to the Trump dossier. He said the FBI and Justice
Department have not complied with requests from congressional members for documents related to
the dossier.
"... Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak. ..."
"... The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives. ..."
"... We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes): ..."
"... Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government ..."
"... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over ..."
"... The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government. ..."
"... After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations ..."
"... After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered: ..."
"... What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?" ..."
"... In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around. ..."
"... Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot. ..."
"... When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security". ..."
"... For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not. ..."
"... When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;) ..."
"... Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits. ..."
"... I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164 ..."
"... Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much? ..."
"... Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump? ..."
"... I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out. ..."
"... IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people? ..."
"... I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it. ..."
"... The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits. ..."
"... The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this. ..."
Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay
money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt
about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and
wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.
There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact
with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit
the country.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a
Washington firm, to conduct the research.
..,
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence
officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Told ya so ...
Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats,
hired the
Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied
the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of
the leak.
The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC
mafia. Most of its content was
obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for
U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI
under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.
We noted in January that the dossier was
additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for
better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes):
The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who
prepared the 35
pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against
Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the
workings in Moscow
could immediately identify it as fake .
...
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published
them because these were obviously false accusations.
Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they
would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at
the highest level of the British government :
... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an
attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British
ambassador to Moscow
arranged the hand over :
... The MI6 is well
known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.
Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for
publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the
election anyway so no further steps were taken.
After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears.
The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the
President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.
It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the
NYT noted
:
...
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress,
did CNN
publish about the 35 pages :
...
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a
coup against Trump :
After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts
to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high
gear. McCain had already
been involved in distributing the report and it
was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:
Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports.
The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a
little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate
its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something
in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more
reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from
Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.
But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report
that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?
The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence"
that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:
What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something
approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to
be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?"
Wake me when someone actually goes to gaol for any of this... yawn...
The protected class has been the protected class for centuries, and shall, without drastic
beyond planetary intervention, remain the protected class for centuries more.
Seems HMSS Agent '.007' didn't quite deliver to "Q" this time... sad state of affairs that
the former once somewhat 'great' Britain has fallen so low in the IQ stakes that they would
even think such contrived rubbish would work. Hubris or desperation? What a laugh! Judging by
the MSM emissions I'd suggest we have a whole generation of policy cretins in 'da service'.
Pure Putin Envy, I suspect: gone blind with geopolitical onanism.
And, can we now assume, as this DC delicacy boils in the cauldron for a few weeks, that we
will soon see Julian Assange make his prison break? He must have enough material in encrypted
dead-man locks on the Clinton Gang et al to get a free pass from diplomatic 'jail' AND
gift his kind South American hosts some diplomatic credits to cash-in down London Town.
....and instantly the anti trump msm leak that a person close to Trump have once contacted
Wikileaks. Sigh.
The clinton paid for dossier is so implacting, or should be, because the media wont cover it
as they should, they will bury it.
The western msm is done, its so corrupt and propagandistic its amazing that not more people
take note of this.
The sad thing is just like you said you brought this up last year. This was being said
throughout last year prior to the POTUS election and had all good investigative reporting
behind it. Now that the court case comes out the msm along with all their pupp[ets are
spouting out this stuff. Everybody with a scintilla of grey matter since mid 2016 new full
well that the whole xenophobic narrative was total BS.Just like the Syrian civil war
narrative was all BS or Benghazi /Qadaffi slaughtering his people. To this day the sheeple
are in this Orwellian stupor. It is dangerous and troubling. We are living like zombies with
no critical thinking or capacity to cal out BS and lies . For heavens sake will the people
wake up and stop supporting this BS and start voting with our brains. Political system is
dead the economy is dead society is sick so we being the 99 percent by shear numbers should
be able to demand and garner change.
You ever notice how everybody can deny it all except for the few unfortunate souls who have
to go into hiding?
My thought is the intelligence community includes the US, UK and Russia, and that's just a
short list. They're all collaborating, and they are the immortal institutions we identify as
"corporations" and "think tanks" regulating government. The idea "the people" have influence
is absurd until one considers all those institutions consist of communities of people.
In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to
subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the
confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative
branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government,
not the other way around.
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting
between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April
2001.
Has someone been watching too many "Cold War" spy movies or is the Czech counterintelligence
service's head stuck so far up Washington's arse they can't see anything. If they'd said it
was Prague, OK perhaps it would have had a bit more credibility.
Russians behind dossier: Anyone else notice that as this story is being reported that Russia (the victim) is being
blamed for the Dossier?
In its most blatant form it goes like this ... 'HRC colluded with the Kremlin against
Trump'. The way they connect the dots; HRC -> DNC -> Steele -> 'alleged Russian
contacts' = Kremlin.
Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule
out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The
point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't
stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot.
This government is not spending enough to meet the risks, threats, nor the opportunities
identified in its own National Defence and Security Strategy.
Politicians go where the power - the money - is. Clinton/Democrats decided to ride the
wave they did not start it. It does get very silly with
Boris Johnson as the top clown .
Anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo of the ruling establishment with a move to
the left will be discredited, and in the event they can't have their character assassinated,
their person will be assassinated instead. See Paul Wellstone, Dr. David Kelly, Pat Tillman,
John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, etc, almost ad infinitum.
When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship
between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman
du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western
societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat
to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of
police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name
of "security".
Both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and what should have been Bernie Sanders' Democratic
Party were threatening to turn back the clock on the Neoliberal/Neoconservative (see:
Zionist) strategy of consolidating both capital and power through divisive politics,
unfettered predatory capitalism, and war; all enabled by a well-orchestrated campaign of
fear, xenophobia, and state-sponsored terror.
Until we root out the Zionist menace from our governments, industries, media, and - in a
hat-tip to psychohistorian - our treasuries, we will continue to toil in an artificially
divided society wherein we work for the benefit of a self-proclaimed chosen few, all the
while being tricked into fighting their wars which are of no benefit to us and then being
given the bill for those wars.
I haven't owned a teevee in years, but I happened to be in a motel room the night that Obama
gave his farewell speech a year or so ago.
After the conclusion of the speech, FoxNews thoroughly critiqued the speech. Switching over
to CNN, Trump's "fake news" network, the speech wasn't covered at all. Instead they covered
the dossier in depth, with several "journalists" droning on and on about all the collusion
evidence.
Which just goes to prove that Trump was correct (again). For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking
Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14
The link in that post requires utmost caution, and should not be opened if your mental
health can be compromised by an excessive dollop of nonsense. Finding two consecutive
sentences with a consistent thread of though is pretty hard. Look at this:
We should consider renewing attempts to expand the UN Security Council to include India,
Brazil, Germany and Japan, and to promote the idea of a rapid reaction force under its
control, however difficult this might prove to be. Our two new aircraft carriers HMS Queen
Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales along with the French carrier in production could play a
leading role in a naval version.
So, "we need" to expand UNSC and the navy. What is the connection? New council members do not
seem useful for the naval expansion (why do not postulate a Brazilian aircraft carrier?!),
and vice versa. And where those aircraft carriers are supposed to go? A new Crimean war? If
you seriously want to address threats to democracy and everything we find good and dear, we
should target Tuvalu, but for that it suffices to have a ship that has, say, 20 berths for
marine infantry, and, most importantly, resolve -- sadly lacking.
This belongs to a genre of political analysis that is boldly nonsensical. Typically, there
is a call for clarity followed by mental spaghetti. And/or a call for boldness followed by
verbiage that is offensive only in its lack of content. But what makes this article somewhat
unique is the sheer number of sentences that come without explanation and go absolutely
nowhere. Why suddenly UNSC expansion? What would improve with two new aircraft carriers owned
by European powers? The threats that have to be addressed are cyber attacks, Islamic
terrorism and Russia undermining the growth of democracy in Ukraine.
The author also mentions his childhood in Nigerian countryside together with the British
need to prevent any single power dominating over continental Europe. The latter would suggest
the need to reduce American influence, the former ????
When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior
officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was
Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian
state "hit". ..... ;)
Steele quit MI6 (wiki) in 2009 and tried to monetize his 'knowledge' and 'subservience' in
private cos., > hack to the highest bidder type.
The relations between Fusion GPS and Orbis https://orbisbi.com - see the symbolic images (Steele a
co-founder) remain murky imho but there you go, such private cos. can make money off paying
hubris-deluded clients who require! this or that.
Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent
and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and
Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good
at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a
brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation
awaits.
The media have to keep running Russia stories--so much so that it seems they ultimately come
round to the point where they're biting the hand that fed them.
Twitter just banned RT and Sputnik from having ads!
Freedom of speech folks, its not worth anything these days. Twitter is nothing but a deep
state empire tool.
@27 karlof1.. but the optics look good for the continued smear of russia... man, this endless
msm story gets very boring.. all it tells me is how decrepit the western msm is at this point
groveling in the ditch 24/7...
Movie Producers are fighting to get another blockbuster "based a true story"
Who will publish the script first of " A Kink in Moscow"? the UK or the USA?
"And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans."
Indeed, will Twitter now ban western msm on their respective reporting of Russia? No of
course not, what a friggin joke. In fact its not a joke its pretty damn scary this censorship
and masshysteria against Russia and these days clearly tells us
who spread propaganda in our soceity and who enable it (Twitter). Its nothing but a tool of
CIA/FBI now. No doubt about that.
Sick McCarthyism is alive 2017, who would have thought? Apparently the western
establishment thought that he was more than right.
To be clear on my part, my opinion is that all major turmoil, wars and financial crises
lead to the Rothchilds.
Do you do PR for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan? I only ask 'cos Rothschilds ain't what they
used to be by a few million miles and if anyone is responsible for all major turmoil, wars
and financial crises, it's Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Stop with the dumb conspiracy
theories, there is enough real shit in the world to be bothered about for many, many
lifetimes.
When a Big Lie is exposed, or simply goes flat like an automobile tire with multiple
pinhole-prick slow leaks, the Big Liars have a damage control strategy: Go Bigger!
This may be a semantic quibble, but to me even blithely characterizing the Steele dossier
as "opposition research" is a mendacious euphemism.
There's a well-known, and perhaps apocryphal, story that Lyndon Johnson once directed his
aides to spread the rumor that his opponent in a Texas election enjoyed physical relations
with barnyard animals. When his staffers allegedly objected that this assertion could never
be proved, Johnson supposedly replied "I know that. I just want to hear him deny
it."
By present-day standards, LBJ's ploy would be characterized as perfectly legitimate
"opposition research".
Judging from preliminary indications, the deluded or desperate anti-Trump resistance and
Democratic Party Establishment may double down and, incredibly, "own" the scurrilous smear.
Not just by dignifying the dirty trick as "normal", i.e. nominally routine, "ethical"
opposition research, but by implying that the fabrications it contains are indeed a "smoking
gun" that ought to be sufficient to fatally undermine Trump's presidency after all.
As I've been remarking more and more lately, a literary committee composed of Jonathan
Swift, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Joseph Heller, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Kurt Vonnegut couldn't
create a more surrealistic and bizarre political landscape.
@Christian Chuba #12
"Eastern Europeans" -> think Ukraine, or more specifically the SBU (Ukraine CIA). The link
with McCain and the Democratic party becomes more clear then (Nuland).
to Ghostship: Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by
Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference
is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
When you start researching the issue of the crippling financial debts that characterize
western countries then it comes evident the primary cause is a predatory private banking
system. Private money manufactures financial crises and wars to coerce governments to impose
local and foreign policies that promote only the interests of private money and which only
has destructive and negative consequences for the 99%. You may not like it hear it and but
all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred
TRILLION!
An undeniable truth. But what do we know about those?
The so called "Democratic Party" is the equivalent of the grand old NSDAP. As with the
original, its followers are as die hard Fascists, as were the good Germans looking the other
way when the truth became obvious.
While I don't believe it will go on for centuries, the callousness and gullibility of the
American people makes them perfect Fascists.
Sieg Heil is the only greeting missing when addressing The Führer. Well, actually the
person's soaking wet dream has always been to be the first Führerin of all times.
Thatcher sucked at it, so the position is still vacant.
The question is, when will we hear the equivalent of "Sieg Heil meine Führerin"?
I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren
Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's
trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating
ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164
Trump declares opioid epidemic a National Emergency. Guess he needs to sanction the CIA's
opium growing project in Afghanistan along with that organization's top officers. After all,
that's what he did to Venezuela for far lesser offences.
I'll try this again w/o link
--from The Saker: Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods
What I propose to do today is to share with you a few recent examples of what Russian
households are regularly exposed to.
By now, you must have heard about the CNN report about how the evil Russkies used Pokemon
to destabilize and subvert the USA. If not, here it is: (video)
In Russia this report was in instant mega-success: the video was translated and
rebroadcasted on every single TV channel. Margarita Simonian, the brilliant director of
Russia Today, was asked during a live show "be truthful and confess – what is your
relationship with Pokemon, do they work for you?" to which she replied "I feed them"
– the audience burst in laughter.
The Russian Pokemon was just the latest in a long series of absolutely insane,
terminally paranoid and rabidly russophobic reports released by the western Ziomedia, all
of which were instantly translated into Russian and rebroadcasted by the Russian media.
One of the techniques regularly used on Russian talkshows is to show a short report
about the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the United States or Europe and then ask a
pro-US guests to react to it. The "liberals" (in the Russian political meaning of this
word, that is a hopelessly naïve pro-western person who loves to trash everything
Russian and who hates Putin and those who support him) are intensely embarrassed and
usually either simply admit that this is crazy nonsense or try to find some crazy nonsense
in the Russian media (and there is plenty of that too) to show that "we are just as bad".
Needless to say, no matter what escape route is chosen, the "liberal" ends up looking like
a total idiot or a traitor.
Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did
they fear Trump so much?
The FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign officials was issued on the basis of the fake
Steele dossier smear. And then Susan Rice used her position to unmask all the participants in
those intercepts.
Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and
UK try so hard to take down Trump?
as far as i've been able to tell, no one has linked to this TRNN interview w/ marcy wheeler,
a.k.a. "emptywheel" on the subject. if the transcript was close to correct, her rant was
totally illogical, even w/ aaron maté pushing back pretty hard.
'Democrats Funded the Steele Dossier that Fueled Russiagate'; After months of obfuscation,
the Washington Post reveals that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele
dossier at the heart of Russiagate. Empty Wheel's Marcy Wheeler and TRNN's Aaron Mate
discuss
while understanding that TRNN is a 'progressive' (whatever that means any more: librul?)
site in general, at least the comments below reflected how anti-roosian, anti-putin
emptywheel is. and illogical.
In reply to ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51
I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on
the way out.
"...why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to
take down Trump?"
Russia too I say. It may not have been a take down so much as an (failed)attempt to become
his handlers. The "dossier" became useless once it was opened to the public. Who are Donald
Trump's handlers? Do we have a puppet, or do we have a puppeteer in Donald Trump?
IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys
and no treats. War is a money racket.
Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign
wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was
unwrapped.
See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really,
do you think he selected his cabinet people?
A day of reckoning abides HRC, CF, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and cohorts. When you dig a
hole for your enemy make sure you also dig one for yourself.
In 2010, Uranium One was labelled a conspiracy theory.
Interesting times ahead.
Now WSJ, Wapo, are all over it. At least NYT wrote on the deal and money flow in April 2015 noting HRC's wish to be
president, Very detailed article but who would believe? Read up on details: timelines, the Canadian connection and the money flow..
NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson.
The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets
of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
I don't need to as I previously worked for a number of financial institutions in the City
of London and I'm well aware of all the shit that banks and bankers get up to.
You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net
worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!
Go on believing that crap if you want to but I'd be interested to know exactly what you
mean by the "House of Rothschild" other than a 1934 film. Also exactly who is reporting that
it's worth several hundred trillion although I notice you don't say what currency their
fortune is in but if it's Zimbabwean dollars that'd mean they're worth less than five dollars
bearing in mind that all Zimbabweans were almost certainly undecillionaires back in 2009.
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51 "Yes, the big question why did the top officials in
the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"
I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the
establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the
establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound
back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it.
Tillerson now treading the straight and narrow and fully on board for regime change
...
Since by all indications it took Romans a coupla centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire
to accept they were no longer top dog, eg the so-called 'dark ages' when the rule of roman
law disintegrated took a few hundred years to really kick off, we shouldn't be surprised that
many englanders struggle to accept their role of just being another beta in the pack. However
what interests me more is the group so well described by recently dubbed Aotearoan deputy PM
Winston Peters, as 'waka jumpers'. (a waka being the te reo name for a canoe).
Peters coined the term back in 1999 when the coalition government between the conservative
National Party and the Peters' formed New Zealand First Party, broke down and the government
lacked the numbers to guarantee supply etc. Some NZF MP's jumped ship over to the Natz
ignoring the policies under which the public gave them their electoral mandate.
Instead they took up bullshit cabinet positions which gave them increased salaries, all
sorts of travel perks for them and their families as well as the title 'Right Honourable'
etc. Needless to say there was no power attached to these new roles - nobody is gonna trust a
traitor - apart from which the Natz Party would have been deep in the doo-doo if they gave
actual power to outsiders while so many hacks 'n whores queued up dutifully in the National
Party waiting for their turn at copping a decent earner. That government limped along for
about 18 months before Helen Clark's Labour mob arseholed them.
Now the term waka jumpers shouldn't just be hung around the necks of the obvious target,
politicians - not when there are low lifes such as Rupert Murdoch, who swap nationalities
about as often as some change their underwear.
Murdoch kicked off existence as an australian then became an englander when he wanted to
dominate english TV and print media - that got him through quite a few british
parliamentary inquiries into media ownership. By the time he was ready to set up Fox and
still enjoy his print media ownership in amerika, Murdoch became an amerikan citizens. That
didn't affect his brit holdings cos once his buyouts had been approved there was no mechanism
for taking ownership back again.
The amerikan citizenship wasn't intended to be permanent, I have no doubt his marriage to
a NewsCorp executive based in Hongkong who 'just by chance' had PRC citizenship was the
beginning of a switch to a Chinese passport for old Rupe. However it rapidly became obvious
that such a move would cost fox big with its looney toons audience, so instead he set about
solving the expansion into China another way.
Murdoch got Star TV, plus China based web portals up and running without having to swap
nationality again - presumably by way of the 'three B's - bullying, blackmailing and
bribing.
That allowed him to give the Chinese missus the flick, so then he decided to do some PR
damage limitation in england & amerika by hooking up with Jaggers seconds, the Anglo
Amerikan Jerry Hall.
Many waka jumpers don't have to swap passports they follow the money eschewing any regard
for their compatriots in the process, and are the biggest obstacle to the notion of one world
that there is.
I reckon there would be nothing better than getting rid of borders and the associated
tyranny over individuals, except there are just too many arsehats out there who would twist
everything up, squirm thru loopholes and screw the rest of us over, so before that happens
more power must be devolved downwards and equality of education, opportunity etc must be much
more robustly organised. Then it makes sense, but any shift before that point and the usual
arseholes are gonna pull their usual strokes.
In this case most brits would be appalled that their establishment got so heavily involved
in another nation's electoral process, but no one asked them. Typically just as happens in
amerika, the call to take a side was made by a self-interested shadow state which has
entirely too much, too poorly defined power.
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
@ Debsisdead who wrote:
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
I agree! The cry for nationalism is a cry for further control by playing countries off
each other.....divide and conquer.
I would hope we can evolve to working terms for anthropological groupings of our species
that transcends nationalism but can be agreed upon as representing cultural significance and
cohesive regional identity.
Or maybe Trump will evolve the world to be a proper empire with galactic uniforms and
badges and stuff for all the MIC....to fit with the game show meme....
Interesting thread. Rich with turmoil. But very real, I think, and exploring ground that is
not that firm.
We know the Brits have been the "Step'n Fetchit" guy for the US spooks for a long time. We
gather that several decades ago, Langley used to be impressed by the English insouciance,
until the moles that tore holes in the UK fabric - Burgess, MacLean, Blunt etc. - destroyed
that old colonial myth of "effortless superiority", and revealed the worst quality of all,
incompetence.
The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only
place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your
actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it
hated to see it in the Brits.
But the SAS could do things for the CIA that didn't need to get reported to the
legislatures of either country. So Britain could do a few hit jobs and earn a few points, a
few shekels. And MI6 must surely have been yearning to crawl back under the US intel umbrella
for a long, long time, until it regained trust somehow - probably from actions of unspeakable
subservience. So it's apparent that the relationship - at this point in history - between the
two spook enterprises is master and servant, US > UK.
A Le Carre fan could tell you all this, and plenty of analyses in the public sphere
could confirm it. So, in sum, there's absolutely no mystery why, or in what hierarchy of
relationship, the UK spooks would work for the US spooks.
The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful
analysis will flow from this.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
This is an interesting old article by guardian which suggest that Trump thought the Steele memo
was a blatant attempt to blackmail him launched against him by intelligence agencies. He proved to be
half-right. FBI was involved with Steele dossier and probably paid some money. It is unclear if
MI6 was involved but Steele would be really reckless if he did his job without consulting the agency.
This is not a regular report -- that was a direct interference into US election. The paper hint that
Steele source might be Ukrainians, not Russians.
Unverified and blighted with factual errors damaging
rumor/insinuation was picked up by media to damage Trump. This is so "color regulation style"
that it hurts.
Notable quotes:
"... Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany ..."
"... Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated". ..."
"... Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, ..."
"... Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. ..."
Shift from measured
tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump
likened to Nazi Germany
, experts say
A shaky
detente between
Donald
Trump
and the intelligence agencies he will soon control has broken down, as Trump wrongly accused
US intelligence of leaking an unverified, salacious document to damage his nascent presidency.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said that "who knows, but maybe the intelligence agencies"
were responsible for the document, which he said would be "a tremendous blot on their record".
Earlier, Trump likened the intelligence agencies to "
Nazi Germany",
in a tweet, saying they "never should have allowed this fake news to 'leak' to the public. One
last shot at me".
... ... ...
James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, said he told Trump on Wednesday evening that
the [US] intelligence community had not been responsible for the leaking of the documents.
"I emphasized that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not
believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said in a statement. Trump referred to the call
in a tweet first thing on Thursday morning, which said
Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious
report that was illegally circulated".
Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier,
acquired by the FBI in December
from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain,
were briefed
to Barack Obama and Trump, no news organization had published the accusations, which purport to reveal
compromising information Russia possesses on Trump. Trump has denied them, and
NBC later reported
that the material was prepared for the Trump briefing, but not discussed.
Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee and a consistent critic of
spycraft excesses, told the Guardian it was "profoundly dangerous" for Trump to continue his feud
with the agencies.
"The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions
about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis
of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community,
or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous," Wyden said.
... ... ...
Trump's outburst was a departure from the moderated tone he had taken on the intelligence agencies
since Friday, when he met with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; FBI director
James Comey; NSA director Mike Rogers and CIA director John Brennan to discuss their
joint conclusion
that Russia had intervened extensively in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.
Trump had previously referred to an intelligence "
as the
witch-hunt
" and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face.
Clapper and Rogers had warned of plummeting
morale within the intelligence community ahead of Trump's presidency. After the meeting, Trump spoke
of his "tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community".
At his press conference on Wednesday, Trump simultaneously accepted and diminished the intelligence
assessment that Russia was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hack, saying "I think
it was Russia" and later adding the caveat: "
You know what? It could be others also.
"...
"... While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. ..."
"... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
"... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
"... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
"... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
"... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
"... And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints all over it ..."
"... Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no matter their policies towards their people. ..."
"... The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility. ..."
"... Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. ..."
"... So here's the list of US invasions of sovereign nations since 1776: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm ..."
While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented
history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has
occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America
and fomented coups against
democratically elected populists .
The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 - whose government was replaced by an authoritarian
monarchy favorable to Washington - the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba
in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government
was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
For decades, these actions were considered imperatives of the Cold War, part of a global struggle
against the Soviet Union and its supposed leftist proxies. Its key participants included scheming
diplomats like
John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, who advocated aggressive, covert policies to stanch the
supposedly expanding threat of communism. Sometimes that agenda also explicitly converged with the
interests of U.S. business: In 1954, Washington unseated Guatemala's left-wing president, Jacobo
Arbenz, who had had the temerity to challenge the vast control of the United Fruit Co., a U.S. corporation,
with agrarian laws that would be fairer to Guatemalan farmers. The CIA went on to install and back
a series of right-wing dictatorships that brutalized the impoverished nation for almost half a century.
A young Che Guevara, who happened to be traveling through Guatemala in 1954, was deeply affected
by Arbenz's overthrow. He later
wrote to his mother that the events prompted him to leave "the path of reason" and would ground
his conviction in the need for radical revolution over gradual political reform.
... ... ...
" Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought
to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist
Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946
to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. "
In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back
against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United
States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory
against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe.
CIA operatives gave millions
of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then
an unprecedented, clandestine
propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated
sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots,
and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.
"We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political
expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets,"
recounted F. Mark Wyatt
, the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct
support to the Christian Democrats.
This
template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring
down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American
funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian
parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.
In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of
nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing
slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties,"
detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas
elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove
him anyway. "
Rude Trevor Vargas, 10/19/2016 11:32 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it,"
I laughed out loud when I read this. Was this printed the same day we started bombing Yemen
on behalf of one of the world's cruelest regimes, the Saudis? It's always amusing when
neoliberals clutch their pearls at the very mention of Assad's crimes against humanity, take a
breath, then give the Saudis, who are every bit as horrible, weapons by the ton.
The difference? The Saudis give us oil. Assad doesn't.
Elisi Newell, 10/18/2016 3:18 AM EDT
As the late great Chalmers Johnson aptly observed, the U.S. is a malignant society. To
further self-educate, read Johnson's Blowback Trilogy.
Brian Hanley, 10/17/2016 1:25 PM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a
well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies
elsewhere."
Excuse me? The USA's worst behavior is right now! The USA fomented a coup in Ukraine,
backed the coup against the elected government. We are still calling it the legitimate
government of Ukraine. We brought NATO to the brink of war in Europe. And Hunter Biden, who
was right in the midst of that, our vice president's son, is now worth $4 billion. This is
gross nepotistic corruption at the top level of our government as far as much of the rest of
the world is concerned.
Behind us? This is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history.
And then there is the madness we are pursuing in Syria against that government, funding a
revolutionary army against the Syrians. What's going on in journalisim's la-la land? Is that
because all of that was mostly Hillary's architecting that nobody can mention it?
centex1, 10/17/2016 8:48 AM EDT
Why limit it to elections ? We have a long and meddlesome history of interfering in just
about everything - everywhere !!
JohninCT, 10/17/2016 6:51 AM EDT
And, so what else is new? The only thing the rumors of Russian hacking are doing is provide
cover for the chosen candidate. Plausible deniability is being set up for Hillary Clinton.
"Oh, That treasonous activity wasn't me. It must have been the Russians" Same game the
Republicans ran with Tailgunner Joe and the CIA in the '50's.
Stand there and wave some papers in the air alleging proof Hill. It's an old game honed to
its finest under John Foster and Alan Dulles and then brought to its finest public lying under
Hammering Hank Kissenger keeping us in Viet Nam waiting for Nixon's "secret plan". [Got an
extra 10 to 15,000 Americans killed. thanks Henry!] All they had to do was wave the red flag
and the lemmings ran off the cliff.
And so Ishann, what else is new. We're now stuck in a war begun during yet another a
Republican administration to pay back their friends. And, apparently, clarified for Mr. Obama
with the explanation from the military industrial complex that what is called "globalism" is
in their best interests and his continued good health in office. And, many of these folks say
their conservatives and patriots. they still lie pretty well!
And, so it goes. The Russian hacking myth gives their candidate plausible deniability. And,
we'll have a female President who probably should be in Leavenworth and would be if she had
been in the military when she conducted her hiding of misuse of classified documents.
As Freedom Flies, 10/17/2016 5:22 AM EDT
You want a one-world government and we are getting closer by the year. Is this not what
Globalism was intended to be? Everyone has an opinion?
I think we should just get used to this because this is what the founders of Globalism
wanted.
murray1, 10/17/2016 5:21 AM EDT
ever hear of Monroe Doctrine? other countries have similar goals as well.
rogerdsl, 10/16/2016 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]
The true is that the US has to apologize to so many people by the actions of so called
"patriots" like Kissinger, who were just long distance criminals and their servants in central
and South America.
No wonder it's better not to say that you are an American if you travel there.
In Chile, the US embassy was just a CIA office for the operation to kill the President
elected Salvador Allende.
And all this for what? Forty years later there is a socialist as president of Chile.
The university of Chicago was also involved in the coup by sending graduate economics
students to drive the Chilean government and inject billions of dollars into the economy.
Dumb and dumber in real life
Wildthing1, 10/16/2016 4:07 PM EDT
Changed? With all of our new technological advances? And the vulnerabilities of the internet
published to the entire planet. Add questions of involvement in a military coup against Charles
DeGaulle.
Hillary Clinton visiting Honduras just before their coup. Add having Kissinger &
Brzezinski as favored advisers. And that the cold war was hyped to create permanent war footing
for permanent MIC needing permanent wars to test out new weapons and get rid of the old in spasms
of creative destruction.
There have been many to question an anachronistic NATO by the way and it is proving in more
all the time. The question is even more relevant after invading Iraq. How can we live with ourselves and our
arrogance of power? Fulbright is a bright as ever.
Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List
By William Blum – Published February 2013
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign
government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Lucky Barker, 10/15/2016 3:11 PM EDT
American experts officially helped Boris Yeltsin to organize massive fraud in the 1996
president elections in Russia.
There were now published payment documents!!!
Imho these was the US experts that would later become to falsify US elections in Florida
(Bush vs Gore)
Ludovici, 10/15/2016 12:03 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it..." You're kidding, right? The US
gov just took out Libya, helped in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in
Ukraine, and are right now trying to overthrow the secular Assad in Syria. Whatever the US
State Dept's true aims, they haven't changed a bit in a hundred years. Still up to the same
skullduggery that the propaganda machine accuses other nations of.
M Stirner, 10/14/2016 11:09 PM EDT
The irony.
The WaPo writes about US government fabricated sex scandals to influence foreign elections,
and totally ignores EXACTLY the same behavior by Obama/Clinton and the rest of the ruling
elite against Trump.
Robert Clark, 10/14/2016 10:24 PM EDT
you left out the last Haitian election in which the Clinton State Dept. team was
instrumental in getting the third most popular candidate elected, as per the NYT article of 15
MAR 2016...."The night of the runoff, which Mr. Martelly won, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff,
Cheryl D. Mills, wrote a congratulatory note to top American diplomats in Haiti.
"You do great elections," Ms. Mills wrote in a message released by the State Department
among a batch of Mrs. Clinton's emails. She wrote that she would buy dinner the next time she
visited: "We can discuss how the counting is going! Just kidding. Kinda. Smile"
nestormakhno, 10/14/2016 1:47 PM EDT
So Kissinger, the thug responsible for Pinochet, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. But I'm
totally out of my mind for voting for Jill Stein for President, huh?
And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints
all over it
rap n fly, 10/14/2016 11:48 AM EDT [Edited]
Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should
remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries
is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national
interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no
matter their policies towards their people.
The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than
thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of
these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility.
Doug Wenzel, 10/14/2016 11:32 AM EDT [Edited]
As Tom Lehrer said over fifty years ago:
"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till someone we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!"
SKYDIVER, 10/14/2016 11:04 AM EDT
Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst
to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in
these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. It had zero to
do with WMD and lots to do with trying to farm out democratic governance to a country that was
not interested in or ready for democracy. Of course, Bush also wanted to take over their oil
fields - a failed effort - and to avenge perceived threats against HW Bush. What Iraq had
before Bush was simply a civil war - absolutely none of our business - and we've often
interfered with civil wars in other countries. Democracy is great, but not all nations - whose
entire populations are quite comfortable with the systems they grew up under - like or want
democracy. We are wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of such countries, and we need to
stop doing it.
zixu, 10/14/2016 8:25 AM EDT
It is a good reminder that the usg is a basic thug in the world. This whole anti russian
campaign and the sabre rattling that goes with it are part of a classic smear campaign. It has
been supported by most of the msm including the wp. this warmongering has no basis in fact. It
serves a purpose for the victoria nulands and the neocons in the usg.
steveh46, 10/14/2016 10:31 AM EDT
Ummm. Just because the usg has been thuggish doesn't mean the current Russian gov't isn't
thuggish.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:24 AM EDT
US under the neocons and AIPAC went to war in Iraq based on lies, killing 5,000 US soldiers
and over 500,000 Iraqi civilians.
We also had the Johnson Vietnam war after the Kennedy assassination of Diem. In Vietnam we
had over 58,000 American deaths and over 1.3 million non-American deaths. Proportion.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:22 AM EDT
Israel has been trying to influence our government for decades using its proxies at AIPAC
and other spy agencies. It is time to expose these traitors and prosecute them.
Ma123456, 10/14/2016 8:16 AM EDT
And don't forget the most recent example: Obama said he wouldn't meet with Netanyahu
because he didn't want to influence the upcoming Israeli election, yet US operatives were on
the ground in Israel doing just that (led by "the architect of the grass-roots and online
organizing efforts behind both of Obama's presidential campaigns")
www.newsmax.com/JohnFund/israel-netanyahu-election-hillary/2015/03/18/id/630817/#ixzz4N3pX2Qyo
This is so interesting, because wikileaks has just come out and said........... that the
Clinton political camp knew all about the emails links, months before they came out to the
public. According to Wikileaks the Clinton camp decided to use this theft on who ever was
Hillary's political rival . Poor Trump he never saw it coming.
Please also : that Hillary was originally going to run against J. Bush. It was set in stone
by the special interest groups that own America. Since both political parties knew about this
theft ( This group also owns both political parties) it was really no big deal. IF this theft
information had to be used.....it would be fruitless. Hillary was going to have a easy breezy
run and, then become president. Bush would then go back to his wealthy lifestyle and life
would go on. They did not expect Trump to get as far as he did this election. So the big theft
would have to be blamed on him.
According to Hillary.......Donald Trump is UNFIT to become president:
Because he has NO EXPERIENCE making people pay for access to government officials!
Because He has NO BACKROUND in leaking intelligence that gets our people killed abroad!
Because he couldn't wipe a server with both hands!
"... ...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that spend over $70 billion annually ..."
"... The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump. ..."
"... They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications, including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT). ..."
"... It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy, it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version. ..."
"... "Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude to Russia " I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies. ..."
"... Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country ..."
"... Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning. Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian people. ..."
"... No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than in Russia ..."
"... There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful" -- nothing could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one. ..."
...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that
spend over $70 billion annually, not including 'black' programs, on who knows what? Tapping
communications and assassinating assorted Muslims from the air no doubt.
Trump has called for an 'even-handed' approach to the question of Palestine, enraging neocons
who fear Israel's headlock on Congress and the White House may be loosened. The neocon press, like
the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and Washington Post, have been baying for Trump's blood. Not since
World War II has the media so dramatically dropped its mask of faux impartiality to reveal it true
political agenda.
Adding to his list of foes, Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress
for his sensible attitude to Russia. The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing
he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress
under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump.
They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged
Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat
to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US
electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications,
including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT).
But don't blame the wicked Moscovites for revealing how Hillary Clinton's Democratic National
Committee rigged the primaries in her favor against Sen. Bernie Sanders. That cat was well out of
the bag already.
It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy,
it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian
TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out
government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version.
Watching our intelligence chiefs and Sen. McCain trying to blacken Trump's name by means of a
sleazy, unverified report about golden showers in a Moscow hotel, is particularly ignoble.
It's also a laugh. Every one who went to Moscow during the Cold War knew about the bugged hotel
rooms, and KGB temptresses (known as 'swallows' -after the birds) who would knock on your door at
night and give you the old Lenin love mambo while hidden camera whirled away. I asked for 8×10 glossies
to be sent to my friends. But sadly for me, the swallows never came though I did meet some lovely
long-legged creatures at the Bolshoi Ballet. So-called honey traps were part of the fun of the cold
war.
Humor aside, it's dismaying to hear senior US intelligence officials who faked 'evidence' that
led to the invasion of Iraq and used torture and assassination attacking Donald Trump. Of course
their jobs are at risk. They should be. The CIA, in particular, has evolved from a pure intelligence
gathering agency into a state-sanctioned Murder Inc that liquidates real and imagined enemies abroad.
The KGB used to do the same thing – but more efficiently.
Our intelligence agencies are a vital component of national security – which has become our new
state religion. But in true bureaucratic form (see Parkinson's Laws) they have become bloated, redundant
and self-perpetuating. They need a tough Trump diet and to be booted out of politics. This past week's
display of the deep state's grab for power – a sort of re-run of one of my favorite films, 'Seven
Days in May' – should remind all thinking Americans that the monster police state apparatus created
by President George W. Bush is the greatest threat to our Republic.
(Reprinted from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
"Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude
to Russia "
I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for
Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies.
If there are some like Cruz who are doing this, they are not representative of Evangelicals and
their motives do not spring from support of Evangelicalism.
Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country (and btw, what "brutal
policies"?), creating chaos, disaster. When what needed was reforms, gradual careful reforms.
Look at China; that's what the USSR should've done in the 1980s.
Not even close, actually. Totally different impetuses. This set of cliches below:
These policies enraged Moscow's security agencies, its hardline Communist elite ('nomenklatura')
and vast military industrial complex. Gorby's proposed budget cuts would have put many of them
out of business. So they decided to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev to save their own skins. The coup
utterly failed and its drunken, bungling leaders jailed.
Betrays lack of understanding of what was going on in USSR since 1988, including the vast majority
of Soviet population voting for preservation of USSR later, on referendum. Even Gorbachev himself
admitted in 1988 or 1989 in one of his interviews on Soviet TV that he knows that he is being portrayed
as wearing a food coupons, instead of medals, on his suit.
Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning.
Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian
people.
No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than
in Russia.
There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful"
-- nothing
could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many
places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their
own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one.
There is no denial the fact that Soviet Party nomenclature degenerated but the so called "coup"
was not really a coup. It is a very long conversation but most of today's oligarchs as well as ideologues,
such as swine-looking late Gaidar, are from party, komsomol and security apparatus. Make your own
conclusions.
"... After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico . ..."
Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While
Lynch Claims Ignorance
The ongoing efforts to bring down Donald Trump are unraveling at an accelerating pace...
Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS Co-Founder
After it was revealed that
Rob
Goldstone
- the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. "
setup
" with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the
largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly
canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the
ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to
Politico
.
The committee announced Wednesday that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was scheduled to
voluntarily appear on July 19.
During the 2016 US election, Simpson's firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to
produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious
dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn't verify it's claims, the FBI
refused to pay him $50,000
for the report - which didn't stop John McCain from
hand-delivering it
to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from
using it to start spying on Trump associate
Carter
Page
.
That's two attempts to take down President Trump involving Fusion GPS.
A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms
Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to
develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier ."
-Mark Corallo
Perhaps sensing he's totally screwed and now a huge liability to the deep state, Simpson
canceled his testimony next week.
Loretta Lynch Knows Nothing
After it
The Hill
at a press conference during his visit to France, stating "She [Veselnitskaya] was
here because of Lynch, following up with "Nothing happened from the meeting... Zero happened
from the meeting, and honestly I think the press made a big deal over something that many
people would do."
Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."
The spokesperson did not go into detail about Veselnitskaya's case, but followed up by
saying "The State Department issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees
entry to the United States at airports."
After Lynch's DOJ allowed Veselnitskaya into the country to participate in a lawsuit and
nothing more , she had the now infamous meeting at Trump tower, met with current and former
lawmakers from both parties, and was spotted in primo front-row seating at a House Foreign
Affairs committee hearing on Russia.
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was
granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited
purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend
itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York
City.
During a court hearing in early January 2016, as Veselnitskaya's permission to stay in the
country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole
immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.
"In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of
extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole," Assistant U.S.
Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing on Jan. 6, 2016.
".. Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."...
I suspect Loretta got some coachin' from Slippery Bill on the tarmac, how to say something
that only a fool would believe means anything.
" I do not have any personal knowledge of Ms Veselnitskaya's .... breakfast plans" what
does that mean?
The drunk on DNC propaganda religious MSNBC ultra left watchers are going to get very
agitated screaming "show trials" when their heroes start doing the orange jumpsuit frog
march. That is when it will get ugly in the streets and on the DC mall. Cheer up comrades, it
is going to get a lot worse.
This whole shit storm will be over soon, because if they peel back the final layer to this
story, they will find that the entire apparatus of Washington, DC is on the take.
and Veselnitskaya is linked to the Bill Browder/Edmund Safra Hermitage Capital Hedge Fund
through her work for people affected by Magnitsky Act........this swamp is certainly deep but
it is hard to know who is a swamp monster and who is being dragged in
How is $ 6 million "pennies on the dollar"? If the U.S. was at one time seeking $ 12
million, is a settlement for half that amount unusual as pre-trial settlements go?
Also how she now insists that it's State and DHS that handle this stuff, while in filed
court briefs in January, DOJ was all breathless about what an extraordinary, rare exemption
Ms. V received, direct from the AG.
Someone is lying. But then, lawyers are involved so I guess it's inevitable.
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company
bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated
sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.
Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot
of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence
for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are.
In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for
Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one
might imagine from the current hysteria.
... ... ...
As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for
many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the
media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother
Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact
that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that
their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very
shaky.
I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there
were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to
Prague...
... ... ...
Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under
the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would
have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The
Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out
from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier
on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt
it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.
... ... ...
When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested
that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political
elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is
not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political
elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this
up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.
BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being
talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But
the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn
Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies
and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.
I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about
the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't
publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would
not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement
with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier
one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.
So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which
is pretty troubling...
... ... ...
Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative
journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....
Here is an excerpt:
When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward
to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump
people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the
effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative
experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam
on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible.
The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look
for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then
build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible
exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump
using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich
was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices
of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.
Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the
accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and
suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact
that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump
are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."
Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters
in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect,
who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't
have any moral boundaries at all," he said.
The Russian president,
cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian
officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.
"... As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite. ..."
"... Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. " ..."
"... The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days. ..."
"... A London newspaper claims Steele was paid Ł200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (Ł12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all. ..."
"... Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story. ..."
As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist
to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been
a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States,
and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to
establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Almost everyone goes to bed at night. Some get up to urinate. The older, less continent ones
can't get up easily, so they urinate on themselves. If properly cared for, they do so in what
is known in the geriatric product market as roll-ups.
A small minority arrange to be urinated upon by others, though not usually on the bed they
aim to sleep in. This may be an erotic pleasure for you, a perversion to the next man. The name
for it is Golden Showers. If conducted between consenting adults, it's not a crime. Paying for
it may be a crime, depending on the local law on procuring. In the Russian criminal code it's
not a felony but a misdemeanour with a fine so small it usually isn't enforced by the police;
certainly not in expensive big-city hotels.
A claim is being widely reported in the US media which supported Hillary Clinton for president
that President-elect Donald Trump paid for at least two ladies to urinate on the bed in the presidential
suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel of Moscow. A former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
agent named Christopher Steele has reported the episode in a memorandum dated June 20, 2016, because
he was paid by a US client to do it; and also because he was paid to speculate that the Russian
Security Service (FSB) filmed it, and has been blackmailing Trump ever since.
Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the
assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked
undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British
intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No
Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being
detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another:
"I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never
made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description
of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. "
The story of the Obama-Trump bed, according to Steele, comes from 2013. Another story, the
one of the Putin bed on which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had sex with a prostitute
in Rome, dates from 2009. The true part has been verified with a tape the lady made of Berlusconi
boasting about the source of the bed as he exercised himself on it. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for
Putin then and now, says the Trump-Obama bed story is "a complete fake. It's total nonsense."
But about the Putin-Berlusconi bed, he said at the time: "We reject this information. I am not
in a position to explain." In short, that bedtime story may be
true .
The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13,
2016. The published form can be read
here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies
there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the
remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele
was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days.
A London newspaper
claims Steele was paid Ł200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele
"who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (Ł12,300) a time every
three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential
nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended
to mislead. That's not all.
The Guardian newspaper, the Financial Times and US newspapers claim the dossier has been circulating
"for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence
officials who have seen them",
according to one reporter.
According
to Financial Times reporter Courtney Weaver, she "investigated some of the allegations contained
in the report but was unable to confirm them." She has published them, nonetheless. For more on
Weaver's record for veracity in Moscow, read
this .
A source at a London due diligence firm which is larger and better known than Steele's
Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. says "standard
due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There
are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt
on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants
you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace;
it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire
a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop
him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered.
That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation
in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped
their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied
in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on
Steele's fake rock operation here
, and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.
The wet bed story, as Steele reported it to his client who then leaked it to the media, looks
like this:
The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the wet bed story, reports seven sources, identified
as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original
seven reappear in the series. Look carefully to detect what the Clinton media have missed.
Source D isn't Russian at all. He is American; Steele reports him as a "close associate of
Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow". D claims to have been "present"; there is
a bedside armchair in the Ritz Carlton photograph, so "present" is possible.
Source E's identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere
in the series as another American – a "Russian émigré figure close to Trump's campaign team" –
not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an "émigré associate
of Trump". Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become "the ethnic Russian
associate of Trump".
The others reported by Steele to have been in on the wet bed story include Source F, "a female
staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there". From the dossier it appears she told her story
to an American who was an "ethnic Russian operative" of the company run by Source E, the émigré.
So Source F isn't a direct or independent source at all. If this is beginning to bewilder you,
it should. The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all.
Just how difficult it was for Steele to pinpoint Trump's sexual activities in Russia, as well
as his business, is indicated by the September 14 memo in the file. This claims to report Trump's
visits to St. Petersburg. No dates have been given. One source, termed as a Russian from the "local
services and tourist industry", reportedly told "a trusted Russian compatriot", three years after
the event, that Trump had "participated in sex parties in the city". How many people make a sex
party isn't reported; two may have sufficed. The memo reports no trace because "all direct witnesses
had recently been 'silenced', i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear".
Trump posed for this photograph during the Miss Universe pageant, one of his business
affairs in Moscow in November 2013. Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-russia-moscow-miss-universe-223173 In a
European newspaper
published on January 15, Trump confirmed this was the occasion for the wet bed story. Trump
said: "I just got a letter from people that went to Russia with me - did you see that letter -
very rich people, they went with me, they said you were with us, I was with them, I wasn't even
here when they said such false stuff. I left, I wasn't even there . . . I was there for the Miss
Universe contest, got up, got my stuff and I left - I wasn't even there - it's all." .
The same report by Steele admits it was "hard to prove" what business, if any, Trump had done
in St. Petersburg. The allegation that, in order to make no reportable real estate transactions,
Trump had "paid bribes to further his interests through affiliated companies", is presented in
the dossier as evidence of Trump's corruption. Steele was taking Ł12,000 to portray the businessman
as someone so inexperienced as to pay bribes before he had a deal, not during or after completion.
Steele's only Russian sources have no reported knowledge of Trump's sexual conduct. They include
two people reported as serving government officials – Source A, a "senior Foreign Ministry figure";
and Source G, a "senior Kremlin official". One is a retiree – a "former top level Russian intelligence
officer still active inside the Kremlin"; and one is "an official close to the Presidential Administration
head [Sergei] Ivanov". That makes four who British intelligence sources are certain had no contact
at all with Steele, his company, or foreigners. A source with direct knowledge of operations says:
"Basic rule [of MI6] is that you are probably identified after a couple of jobs. Then in any other
visit you might infect anyone you associate with." Second rule, according to this source, is that
by the time his cover was blown in 1996 Steele had "infected everyone he had been associated with
in Moscow." Since then all he has been able to collect is hearsay three or four times removed
from its origin.
Among Steele's kibitzers, he names a businessman, a "senior Russian financial officer"; "two
well-placed and established Kremlin sources", a "Kremlin insider", a "well-placed Russian figure",
and a "close associate of Rosneft President and Putin ally Igor Sechin". The duo claims that Peskov,
the presidential spokesman, had "botched" his role in the military coup in Turkey on July 15,
2016, and was in trouble with chief of staff Ivanov, the Russian intelligence agencies and Putin.
Steele's sources provided "no further details" so they didn't know what Peskov had done.
Steele failed to check the record. Had he done so, he would have discovered that Peskov made
a public denial of Middle East press reports claiming Russian military intelligence had warned
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the plot against him, enabling him to survive. ""I don't
have such information and I don't know the sources, to which the news agency Fars is referring,"
Peskov declared . This was either
a less than convincing denial of the truth, or an incredulous falsehood. Either way, no Russian
source, civilian or military, has suggested Peskov had done anything remarkable. "If Peskov botched
that one," said a source in a position to know, "he does the same all the time. What's news about
that?"
The "Kremlin insider" – not an official, not a retiree, possibly a journalist – is presented
by Steele in a memo of October 19, 2016, as his only source for reporting that Trump's lawyer,
Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Kremlin officials "in the attempt to prevent the full details
of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed." The "insider" had revealed what he knew "speaking
in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend". However, between the two of them they didn't
know which Kremlin officials Cohen had met; where; when; or what had been discussed. The "insider"
did confide that Ivanov's replacement as chief of the presidential staff by his deputy, Anton
Vaino, on August 12, 2016, and Sergei Kirienko's transfer from the state nuclear power holding
Rosatom to deputy chief of the staff at the Kremlin on October 5 were both connected to the same
thing – the "need to cover up Kremlin's Trump support operation".
Ivanov, extreme left, has remained an active member of the National Security Council, as
this council session of January 13
shows . Russian
gossip and speculation on the reasons for Ivanov's exit from the chief of staff post were voluminous
at the time, including as many personal as policy and political reasons. Steele selected the story
his client asked for with a blind attribution in a crowd; added the adjective "Kremlin"; and submitted
a fresh invoice for Ł12,000.
The source "close" to Sechin was reported as saying that during a visit to Moscow in July 2016,
Carter Page, a sometime advisor to Trump, had met Sechin, and been told that Sechin "continued
to believe that Trump could win the US presidency". Sechin reportedly also told Page that if Trump
lifted US sanctions on Rosneft, he would offer "Page/Trump's associates the brokerage [sic] of
up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return." This was reported on October 18.
On December 12 Carter, back in Moscow, told Russian reporters he had revisited Rosneft: "I had
the opportunity to meet with some of the top managers of the company Rosneft. The recent Rosneft
deal, in which the Qatar Fund and Glencore could take part is unfortunately a good example of
how American private companies are limited to a great degree due to the influence of sanctions."
Page added
: "The most classic example [of fake news] was of course the claims of my contacts with Igor
Ivanovich [Sechin] which would have been a great honor but nevertheless did not take place."
That Sechin and his associates at Rosneft had been scouring the global markets for a formula
to privatize a 19.5% stake in Rosneft had been well-known for months. No news either was Page's
personal interest in Russian deal-making to support his one-man business,
Global Energy Capital LLC
. Steele has run the two stories together for a client who knew neither, and for reporters at
the Clinton media who didn't check. Page's comments in Moscow reveal he has failed to understand
the "privatization" Sechin was intending. For details, read
this .
If Steele's operations were as well-known to the Russian services as the fake rock caper, the
Russians were capable of planting disinformation intended to confuse or mislead Steele and his
clientele, as well as the long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as
Trump advisors. "Intelligence is not evidence, and Steele would have known, better than anyone,
that the information he was gathering was not fact and could be wrong", the Guardian has
reported . In Moscow Russian sources say Page has made a record of wishful thinking and hustling
for a job in the new administration; in Washington Trump's announcement of one has yet to be made.
Russian and western intelligence sources say there is one point the Steele dossier reports
more accurately than the report
issued on January 6 by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's entitled
"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". Although Air Force Lieutenant-General
James Clapper, the departing Director of National Intelligence (below, left), and his subordinates,
who authored this paper, refer to "Russia's intelligence services" – plural – they claim the operations
against civilian targets were conducted by just one, the military intelligence organization, GRU.
Watch carefully as the Clapper group slips from what it knows about military cyber warfare
(signals interception, weapons jamming) into civilian email hacking. "We assess with high confidence
that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release victim data
obtained in cyber operations We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired
from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks."
Steele's dossier reports that the Russian information campaign was run very differently, and
from several different sources. In overall command, next to Putin, was his chief of staff until
August, Ivanov. Surveillance of Americans in Russia, including electronic and photographic, was
the responsibility of the FSB. The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was in charge of "targeting
foreign, especially western governments, penetrating leading foreign business corporations, especially
banks."
Peskov's role was to arrange for media publication of kompromat on Clinton and "black PR",
collected by the FSB and SVR. According to a "former intelligence officer, the FSB was the lead
organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations." Not a word about the GRU.
The FSB, according to Steele, was reportedly in charge of "using botnets and porn traffic to
transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data, and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic
party leadership. There is no mention of GRU. In Clapper's version, "Romanian hackers" were GRU
agents. In Steele's version they were "paid by both Trump's team and the Kremlin, though their
orders and ultimate loyalty lay with Ivanov as Head of the PA [Presidential Administration]."
The Steele memo No. 095 of July 2016 even admits there were "Trump moles" and "agents/facilitators
within the Democratic Party structure itself" who leaked internal Clinton campaign emails. The
Trump team, it is also reported, provided the Russians with the information that was their highest
priority – "the activities of [Russian] business oligarchs and their families' activities and
assets in the US." Memo no. 097 of July 30 repeats that "Putin's priority requirement had been
for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs
and their families." This didn't come from a Russian source. According to Steele, the source was
an American, who was also a Russian émigré, and who was "speaking in confidence to a trusted [American]
associate."
Both the Clapper and Steele dossiers depend on a great deal of speaking in confidence to trusted
associates, but they can't both be right about which Russian agency was in charge of which US
operation. A London associate of Steele's, who doesn't trust him, comments: "I am sure in this
case he left no stone unturned in his search for the truth. Steele and his associates became so
fixated on the import of what he had on his hands, he lost track of the fact that these are compelling
STORIES. Being plausible is vitally important, but that doesn't make the stories true. And if
not true, well they are dust. "
"There may have been only one Trump bed, but there are so many fleas."
As I commented about Mr. Steele several days ago, he must be a relative of the famous Remington
Steele. In true family tradition, both Steeles are products of falsehood. They bring a "little
joy into (peoples) humdrum lives," and "feel (their) hard work ain't been in vain for nuthin,"
to paraphrase that shining star in the firmament, Lina Lamont. All that's missing here is the
obligatory disclaimer; "This product sold for entertainment purposes only." That the "product"
is being bruited about as "real" and of consequence is the basic deception intended.
What should be of worry here is the fact that what passes for journalism today is actually
"disinfotainment." The Paris Revue it ain't.
Thanks for the debunking although Golden Showers Gate is so last week. Perhaps come Friday
the looney sitzkrieg period will finally be over and our famously free press can start reporting
some real stuff.
I know but I thought readers would still appreciate the fine detail, particularly regarding
Steele, since the later efforts to prop up the story revolved around finding some folks to
vouch for him.
Plus – if a patently fake (although plausible) story is not completely debunked, the problem
is that its after-effects linger on in people's consciousness for a long time
I put the odds at 99% that in 2020 we are still seeing polls indicating 50% of Americans
believe Russia hacks or influences America. 75% of Ds and 25% of Rs. In 2021, depending on
election outcome, the ratios may switch, or stay the same. Assuming we didn't have WW3 before
then.
By all means, thank you. Helmer always shines light from unusual directions, and the perspective
shown by looking in formerly unexamined nooks and crannies is always, well, illuminating.
It can't be hacking because Pedestal gave whomever his password. And it can't be espionage
because the DNC is a private organization. It can't be subversion because all the information
that was released was true, unlike the top secret smear campaign on Trump. Can't wait for Trump's
summary of hacking.
I only skimmed through this but thanks. Have had a couple of conversations with people about
this, uh, situation. People who despise Trump really really want to believe it from the bottom
of their hearts, and the fact that Mr. Steele is former MI6 just adds to their fervent belief
in this legend.
A buncha hooey, if ya ask me. From the get-go, Steele seemed desparate to me. He hasn't
been in Russia in quite a long time. I fail to see him as a credible source.
As "b" at Moon of Alabama has said, there's plenty of concerns about Trump, and we should
all be vigilent in witnessing what he does and responding accordingly. This crap is just more
distraction from actually paying attention to Trump's cabinet picks and their vetting process.
How much time has been wasted hyperventilating about golden showers, while some of these cabinet
weasels slip through the congressional vetting process without even having their ethics reviews
completed? Where's the outrage over that? As usual: crickets.
I'm so DONE with the Democratic party and their antics. They're appear to me to be signalling
that they're not intending to really play hard ball with Trump and, you know, actually do the
job that we are paying them to do. Rather they'd prefer to waste time, money and other resources
by trying to play "gotcha" with Trump overy stupid stuff.
This. Is the real point. The media is splashing around noisily like swimmers in a bidet
while some very nasty pieces of work are being installed in the highest office in the federal
bureaucracy. And then there's the new congress. You've got to be scouring the news every day
to catch word of the bills they are writing. As if nothing has changed, and the impact on our
lives will remain small and distant.
+1 yes and also the new Congress Maybe Trump is just a big fat DISTRACTION (although that
remains to be seen of course, I have no absolute certainty on what he will do after Jan 20,
but perhaps it really is all distraction even if unplanned).
And maybe Congress (and the appointees) hold the real power (and they are a piece of work!!!
And people bother protesting Trump and yet by the lack of such go around normalizing these
horrible, possibly even worse than Trump, Republicans that aren't Trump – people like Paul
Ryan).
Steele reminds me of a character in
The Tailor of
Panama , by John Le Carré. That book also could be used relative to
Curveball , who featured in our recent Iraq adventures.
There is an obvious demand for more books that allow us to predict the future.
I did want to find a true fact. Didn't ever believe the Golden Shower story. We know that
the Trump organization sold real estate in NYC to Russian Oligarchs. We can believe that Putin
would have motives to discover who of his orbits bought what & for how much.
Black, White, Red categories of jobs is of use to a fiction spy story writer.
Every big residential real estate developer in NYC sells condos to Russians. Selling real
estate to someone does not give them a hold over you. Let us not forget that the Chinese are
yuuge real estate buyers too but Trump has been rattling China's cage.
The link to the fake rock story, and apparently all the other links to Helmer's website.
Appear to be broken. Or his site is down. I was interested in that, seems like some real Spy
vs. Spy type stuff.
"... "It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!" ..."
"... According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump continued excoriating the forces behind the published document
of unsubstantiated accusations of compromising behavior, accusing his political rivals for leaking
the document prepared by a private investigator.
"It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents
and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump
wrote
on Twitter Friday morning,
adding
, "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans
– FAKE NEWS!"
The Wall Street Journal
reported that former British spy Christopher Steele, now the director of a private investigation
firm, prepared the document.
According to the
New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion
GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters,
and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Trump again
pointed
to Russian
denials of possessing information on him and suggested "intelligence" sources released
it.
"... This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News." ..."
"... Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager ..."
"... What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families. ..."
"... Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% . ..."
"... The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link ..."
"... It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect. ..."
"... Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way. ..."
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as
a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align
with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by
using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and
unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with
one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
If any of the significant claims in this "dossier" turn out to be provably false - such
as Cohen's trip to Prague - many people will conclude, with Trump's encouragement, that large
media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying
"Fake News" to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render
impotent - future journalistic exposés
LOL! The horse is long gone from that stable, I think.
Plenty to dislike about Greenwald, but he is certainly very intelligent and competent, and
almost always makes good points well, in his writings. In some ways, he clearly is more genuinely
principled than most on the left who make loud noises about supposed principles that they never
adhere to when it's inconvenient to do so.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news
by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved,
and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist
with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj
-- one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners
declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing
like losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared
war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like
losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
This "dossier" is what Steve Sailer calls, of social justice warrior bully tactics, a "hate
hoax."
And we all know how irresistible hate hoaxes are and how valuable as propaganda hate hoaxes
are to the Invade The World / Invite The World E$tabli$hment $ellout schmucks who hold the Megaphone
– the same schmucks who bury their follow-up reports that admit that they were wrong about the
"truth" of such "incidents" that are, of course, the usual series of hate hoaxes.
The same schmucks whose Megaphone told us that Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and yellowcake formed
a genuine casus belli , that Trayvon Martin was a cute innocent juvenile murdered deliberately
by a "White Hispanic," that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" were all gospel truth.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin
pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
The Deeps State better mind their manners lest DT send a busload of Hillbilly's over to get
midevil on their skinny asses. Don't think they won't know where to look or how to get er done.
Heads will be on pikes if they don't watch themselves.
"The deep state was responsible for Trump" – remember how convincing that sounded a month ago?
What happened? Not much at all. The 'show', as it were, goes on. Now we're to suspect the "deep
state was for Trump before they were again' Trump." Entertained yet? They hope so. A great fear
of the dictorial oligarchy is that the average rube will doubt the presentation of team sports
via the courtesans in elected office and their whore/megaphones in the ministry of truth. The
show must go on. Alternatively, Americans can decide they're no longer interested. Look out!
I would hesitate to credit the 1% as lead instigators in this orgy of chaos; they are mainly
above the fray. I would look to their minions who appear terrified the boat may leave and their
tickets canceled. But it is a splendid display of puerility; we are truly shameless. Imagine
this country faced with a real crisis; no don't. We still must pretend we are sane and nobody
around the world is listening and watching the show. Altogether now: WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Today the
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign committee
violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of
payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump
and Russia. The CLC's complaint asserts that by effectively hiding these payments from public
scrutiny the DNC and Clinton "undermined the vital public information role of campaign
disclosures."
On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid
opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump's Russia ties, but routed the money
through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as "legal services" on their FEC
reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason
money is spent and its recipient.
"By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public
information role of campaign disclosures," said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation
and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC's Associate General Counsel for Policy.
"Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable
for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take
appropriate action."
"Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and
this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide," said Brendan
Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. "Payments by a campaign or party committee to
an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But
describing payments for opposition research as 'legal services' is entirely misleading and
subverts the reporting requirements."
While details of the payment arrangements remain
scarce, FEC records indicate that the Hillary campaign and the DNC paid a total of $12 million
to Perkins Coie for "legal services." Marc Elias, a Perkins partner and general counsel for
Hillary's campaign, then used some portion of those funds to turn around and hire Fusion GPS
who then contracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the now-infamous
dossier. Per the
Daily Caller :
It was revealed on Tuesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC began paying Fusion GPS, the
research firm that commissioned the dossier, last April to continue research it was conducting
on Trump. The Washington Post reported that Fusion approached lawyers at Perkins Coie, the firm
that represented the campaign and DNC, offering to sell its investigative services.
Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner, and the general counsel for the campaign and DNC,
oversaw the operation, according to The Post.
It is not clear how much Democrats, through Perkins Coie, paid Fusion for the project, which
lasted until early November. Federal Election Commission records show that the campaign and DNC
paid the law firm $12 million during the election cycle.
Ironically, most of the sources listed in the dossier were based in Russia and include a
"senior Kremlin official" as well as other "close associates of Vladimir Putin." Moreover, as
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell notes, it's h ighly likely that some portion of the $12
million paid to Perkins Coie by the DNC and Hillary campaign made it's way into the pockets of
those "senior Kremlin officials" as compensation for the services.
In the dossier, Steele cites numerous anonymous sources, many of which work in the upper
echelons of the Russian government.
The first two sources cited in the dossier's first memo, dated June 20, 2016, are "a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still
active inside the Kremlin."
A third source is referred to as "a senior Russian financial official." Other sources in the
dossier are described as "a senior Kremlin official" and sources close to Igor Sechin, the head
of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a close associate of Vladimir Putin's.
To summarize, after a full year of mainstream media hysteria over alleged Trump-Russia
collusion, it now appears as though the Hillary campaign may have been the only one to funnel
cash to "Kremlin operatives" in return for political dirt...
Of course, we have no doubt that Hillary was in the dark about all of these
arrangements.
trump will closely (hillery's undoing) follow suit as a 'Protest far greater than the
final days of the Vietnam Era' sweep the country....--- wanting war with NK (China &
Russia).
The long-help suspicions that Andrew McCabe is intimately involved in this dossier
procurement are gaining traction:
"...FBI insiders say fired FBI Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe , deputy FBI
director, used Bureau funds to underwrite the controversial dossier on President Donald Trump
during the 2016 presidential election, sources confirm.
And the deal to dig dirt on a presidential candidate was put together with the help of
Sen. John McCain, sources said.
These new revelations in fact might be the worst kept secrets in Washington, D.C. but now
rank-and-file FBI agents want the Bureau to come clean on its relationship with the author of
the problematic Trump dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele..."
"...Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS
and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary
Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe , who is under investigation by
the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial
and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democratic activist wife.
Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with
Steele..."
"...Steele hadn't worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn't actually travel there to
gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand "friend of friend" sourcing.
In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but "in confidence to
a trusted compatriot" who, in turn, spoke to Steele -- and always anonymously.
But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as
"intelligence" was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted -- replete with
errors -- from Wikipedia.
In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his
campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote
his monthly reports..."
"... Mr. McCabe's appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton
associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr.
McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Mr.
Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in
the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI's
second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation
of the Republican presidential campaign...."
Now it is clear that Steele dossier was clearly a British intelligence services fake ordered and
paid by DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign... And now we know who paid for it. and we know
who tried to "spread the news". Atlantic tried to embellish actions of DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign but there were clearly against the law.
Not that different from Iraq WMD and uranium purchase story
Notable quotes:
"... Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate. ..."
"... Lawfare ..."
"... That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. ..."
Late Tuesday afternoon, CNN published a story reporting that intelligence officials had given
Trump, President Obama, and eight top members of Congress a two-page memo, summarizing allegations
that Russian agents claimed they had compromising information on Trump. (If you're finding this chain
difficult to follow, you're not alone;
I tried to parse the story in some detail here .) CNN said officials had given no indication
that they believed the material in the memo to be accurate. That memo, in turn, was based on 35 pages
of materials gathered by a former British intelligence operative who had gathered them while conducting
opposition research for various Trump opponents, both Republicans and Democrats.
The story left many questions unanswered -- most importantly, whether the claims were accurate,
but also just what the claims were; CNN said it was withholding the contents of the memo because
it could not independently verify the allegations.
The second question was answered in short order, when BuzzFeed
posted a PDF of the 35-page dossier a little after 6 p.m. Even in their posting, BuzzFeed
acknowledged some misgivings about the document, admitting that it was full of unverified claims.
"It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors," the story noted. Verified or not, the
claims were highly explosive, and in some cases quite graphic. Because they are not verified, I will
not summarize them here, though they can be read at BuzzFeed or in any other number of places.
Other reporting,
including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained
in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH
HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations
to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate.
Sensing that the decision to publish would be controversial, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief
Ben Smith wrote a memo to staff explaining the thinking, and
then posted it
on Twitter .
"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers.
We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation
at the highest levels of American government and media," Smith wrote. "Publishing this document was
not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing
the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."
Smith alluded to the document's wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either
acquired or been offered the chance to view it -- a group that includes CNN, Politico (
whose Ken Vogel said he'd chased the story ), and Lawfare
. David Corn of Mother Jones also
published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.
Smith's reasoning is sincere and considered, but the conclusion is highly dubious. Even more perturbing
was the reasoning in the published story. "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the
full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect
that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the story stated.
That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure --
Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous;
the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. Second, the appeal to "transparency" notwithstanding,
this represents an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism. The reporter's job is not
to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain, though that can at times be
useful too, as some of WikiLeaks' revelations have shown. It is to gather information, sift through
it, and determine what is true and what is not. The point of a professional journalist corps is to
have people whose job it is to do that work on behalf of society, and who can cultivate sources and
expertise to help them adjudicate it. A pluralistic press corps is necessary to avoid monolithic
thinking among reporters, but transparent transmission of misinformation is no more helpful or clarifying
than no information at all.
Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession
comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean
on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.
The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and
sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator
John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication
to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.
While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research
report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession
of blackmail-able kompromat
on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information.
The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October
were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors),
purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only
David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess
of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.
The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed
for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican
primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created
for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental
sources had that been known.
Enter John McCain. According to
media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent
of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source,
a former British intelligence officer).
Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately)
to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then
became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential
election.
Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful
members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire
or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government.
McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise
have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on
Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.
So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the
FBI Director to hand over this report that he
released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing
information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available
to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that
Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump
Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30
years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although
Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest
hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the
Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump
Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the
head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is
neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin?
Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption
that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary
of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President
of the US is to be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for
whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or
the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally
wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a
rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
Ditto, regulations.
Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them.
Charters, for example.
Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material
on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.
Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home
this week.
The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material
on Mr Trump.
The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published
as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and
his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
... ... ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer
- rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was
"probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.
He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier
had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".
Donald J. Tump Twit
@realDonaldTrump
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally
circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!
... ... ...
Obama briefing
The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans
opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.
Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However,
the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President
Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have
been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community
last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking
the dossier.
So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence
the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke
Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks
supporters for 'kind messages'
The former MI6 agent behind the
controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused
an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.
Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company
Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his
dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.
"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here,"
he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages
and support over the last few weeks."
Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said
he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making
any further statements or comments at this time."
Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded
with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified
sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow
in 2013.
It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton
hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential
visit.
Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin
also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed
Russia did not collect
kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.
Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not
been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside
his family home in Surrey.
Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends.
The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered
in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea,
probably on Putin's orders .
As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning,
quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his
case officer, friends said.
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched
an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive
magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims
of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.
Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges
against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has
yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against
the President.
The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine,
which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative
that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures
in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence
team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump
they launched after his November 2016 election victory.
Brennan set up a task force to look into
the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered
a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John
McCain.
The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant
attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the
campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative
report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the
talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented
by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached
by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false,
and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."
Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,
"For
the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence
would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against
Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking
narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."
A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director
The Role of the CIA's John Brennan
In its lengthy feature article on FBI Director James Comey, The
New York Times disingenuously evades the new evidence from the
British press that nails former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan for using
the "Trump dossier" as weaponized fake intelligence, which he wielded to spearhead an interagency
task force to investigate Trump during and after the election campaign. The Times article's sole
mention of Brennan suppresses any mention of its own reporting by three of the same reporters on
January 19 about the six-agency, anti-Trump task force or working group (and naturally there
is no investigative reporting to dig into the task force's scandalous operations).
But, of course, that was the same New York Times article, in its January 20 print edition, that
headlined the "
Wiretapped Trump Aides ." The Times wants to forget all about that, now that President Trump
has made the Obama "wire tapping" an issue.
The timing and use of the "Trump dossier" suggests that Hillary's agents during the campaign panicked
when Julian Assange announced on
June 12 , 2016, that he would soon release emails from within the Hillary campaign -- unauthorized
and uncensored -- not official State Department releases redacted to protect Hillary.
It seems as if Hillary's backers hired someone to throw together any sleazy garbage that they could
use to blunt the impact, or even nullify the potentially disastrous effects of the Hillary/DNC emails,
which as far as they knew could come out any day or any minute from WikiLeaks. The first Christopher
Steele report in the "dossier," with the vilest allegations of all, was rushed out in record time,
dated barely a week later, on
June 20 .
From their perspective of defending Hillary, it had to be something on Trump so foul, so disgusting,
that no one would pay any attention to what the WikiLeaks emails from Hillary said or disclosed.
Hence, the first "Trump dossier" report concocted on or before June 20 tried to claim Trump hired
prostitutes to "golden shower" (urinate on) the former Obama bed in the Moscow hotel (or as we have
seen, "someone" said "someone else" said Trump "may" have done so, and it "may" have been taped,
maybe in "some year" or other, etc. Our words in quotes). The Hillary funders evidently did not count
on the "Trump dossier" being so repulsive that even the most hate-filled major media, such as The
New York Times and CNN, could not stomach publishing it or risking lawsuits from a billionaire like
Trump. So they simply drew attention to the document without reproducing it, at first only by veiled
allusion.
As the election approached, the increasingly frantic media began leaking out more and more from
the sickening "dossier." (
NYT
, July 29;
Yahoo News September 23;
Mother Jones October 31;
Washington Post November 1,
Newsweek November 4,
Salon November 4, etc.)
In addition to Comey, who took the bait, we have
evidence
that Obama's CIA director
John Brennan was involved in spreading the allegations, briefing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (who
turned around and lambasted Comey), and using it and illegal NSA-GCHQ wiretap data to set up an interagency
task force to investigate Trump. Such CIA-led actions were in violation of the CIA charter forbidding
them from carrying out any law enforcement, police or internal security functions (50 U.S. Code 3036(d)(1)).
(AIM
Special Report , April 17)
Trying to make something out of nothing, the illegal intelligence agency leaks suggest that the
CIA has found some minor "aspects" in the "dossier" that are "
corroborated
" by intercepted wiretap communications. But these turned out to be pseudo-corroborations of
long-known matters of public knowledge (such as alleged Trump adviser Carter Page's "secret" visit
to Moscow, actually openly reported in the
press on July 7).
In fact, essentially the same story indicating that a few business meetings in the "dossier" were
"confirmed" by intercepted communications -- but not important facts -- ran in
Yahoo News on September 23, 2016.
So this is old fake news, designed to magnify and exaggerate trivia to suggest the opposite of
what was actually known, which was that nothing incriminating or wrongful about Trump associate's
business activities with Russia had been found -- no "smoking gun." (
AIM
, Febrary 20 and
April 17 , 2017; cf.
Washington Post November 1, 2016; and
CNN )
"... Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated. ..."
"... President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up. ..."
"... In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos). ..."
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives'
Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team
when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump,
Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.
Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump.
She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather
relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have
given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.
Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition
period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President
Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him,
which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.
President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral
headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction"
that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.
In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly
legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it
is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles,
between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military
advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).
"... Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway. ..."
"... Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance. ..."
"... Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm. ..."
And none of it was very legal. In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing
the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate's choice for president of the United States.
And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the
FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under
DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed. The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names:
James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA).
And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.
President Barack Obama's White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement
of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.
Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates
and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates
to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed
by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct
NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial
Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates
as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international
security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it
is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not
illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian
collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from
entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the
then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter
inquiry on the Russian's visa by True Pundit.
Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State
Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for
the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.
Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele,
who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was
well underway.
The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele's dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began
in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun
was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.
Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August
2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016,
federal sources confirm.
It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it
was approved.
FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal
wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.
"This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings," one federal law enforcement source said. "I don't think they ever
thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence."
The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, they are covering up the Elite crimes, they
won't do their job, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail.
Yeah. This is who the Russian economist close to Putin was talking about when he sid they aren't worried about Nazis in the
Ukraine, that they are worried about the Nazis in Washington.
Trump knew about this because Mike Rogers tipped him off Nov. 17 in an unannounced meeting at Trump Towers. The next day campaign
operations moved to New Jersey and Clapper sent a letter to Obama demanding Rogers be fired.
Baharra was fired...Comey was fired...Harrington resigned Jan 23...Rogers still has his job.
see more
Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates
suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with
the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader
inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
CNN
reported
Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an
investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly
lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable
cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
When
news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness.
Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable
cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury
was not unexpected .
A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority.
Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That's also why the search warrant
executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search
warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before
he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having
nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed
and was not at his direction.
Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know
exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals
involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.
We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean
any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.
The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times
reported
Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller
were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical
white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and
then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to
be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.
Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know
many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.
But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with
us for some time.
Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
"... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
"... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
"... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
"... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
"... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
"... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
"... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional
subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation
into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton
investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging
or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the
left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic
and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing
force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These
include, but are not limited to:
FBI's decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information but not
to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
FBI's decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
FBI's decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather
than the DOJ;
FBI's timeline in respect to charging decisions.
'The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were
drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability
of actions taken."
Of course, this comes just one day after
Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which,
these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.
Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or
the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our
republic..."
Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill,
squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.
It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably
50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until
then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!
Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary
players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people
of the world.
Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly
incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info
of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can
be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know
can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping
point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.
You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style.
If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders
and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is
the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.
It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.
We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember
Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney
general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)
Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news.
Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.
Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision
may very well save the republic.
If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily
sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.
Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This
will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.
lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons.
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time
and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.
Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.
That should have been Sessions' first order of business.
He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the
Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.
They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage
and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch,
Holder, and Comey.
Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.
Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation
happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire
the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the
Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy
Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier
– which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically
suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of
dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Sound familiar?
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public
until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this
would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been
stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the
Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias -
$5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance
records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since
Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when
an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The
Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been
identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized
that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start,
WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was
primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion.
Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected
compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist
his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear
how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI
and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has
now been made public.
Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or
FBI should immediately release who paid for it.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to
disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony
last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.
The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may
never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering
intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele
was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from
the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian
entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.
Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January.
John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion
GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do
known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of
Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the
dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along
and did it... for the clicks.
So to summarize:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on
Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources,
both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media
and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just
a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the
Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear
business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at
Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story,
Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources)
are wrong."
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back
vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI
Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in
funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately
means Hillary Clinton herself.
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc
Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not
surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may
themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.
Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and
ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ
,
Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert
Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan
grandstanding you imagine.
Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably
reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British
former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited
stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really
connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were
consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The
resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an
FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to
trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a
vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief
James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian
intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI
when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a
Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But
now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers
Congress.
Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After
the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear
establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought
to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the
surface and which as of today is
being investigated by the House :
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian
entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill
Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary
Clinton's State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery
and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of
Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010
transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the
scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice
Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its
significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is
that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."
Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all:
former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly
embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if
just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake
intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their
impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more
consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot
behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and
distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political
spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the
media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod
Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr.
Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe
remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the
Russia meddling matter.
The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first -
their time will come. It's the FBI:
By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the
FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it
bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much
to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then,
in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency
We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this...
and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.
Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were
complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the
forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women"
phenomena
to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve
their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President
Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before
that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria
Jones/AP)
Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear
how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles
of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of
Fusion GPS's role.
Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm
hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from
John Sipher a is
a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt
to defend Steele dossier in his
Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents
usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his
evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved
in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were
opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision
not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate
investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.
The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee
chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the
FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey
and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation
last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.
The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving
those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.
Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS,
the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without
any legitimate purposes.
Looks like Atlantic honchos are really worrying at the possibility of the release of the JFK
assassination documents. I like the line "One, that the press is "the enemy of the American
people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that
the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect."
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy. ..."
"... Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no? ..."
"... I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction. ..."
"... Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes. ..."
Trump tweeted Saturday morning,
"I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened."
Trump's announcement came a day after his longtime confidant Roger Stone went on
Infowars , a radio show and website known for spreading conspiracy theories, and
announced that Trump would not block the release of the documents, which are set to be issued
by the National Archives in the coming days. Earlier that day, Politico Magazine had published an in-depth piece saying that Trump would likely
block the release of the files.
Here's the thing that happens, apparently, when a conspiracy theorist becomes president of
the United States: The lines between decision and reaction blur. The American people are
accustomed to public officials spinning their way through public office. No president has been
truly forthcoming with the electorate. Many have misled the American people.
... ... ...
Regardless of the files, though, Trump's attention to them is a window into
how he wants to be seen. In one dashed-off tweet, Trump positions himself as doing something
noble -- advocating for transparency, against the warnings of the intelligence community --
while feeding at least two major conspiracies. One, that the press is "the enemy of the
American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to
the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect.
"The best conspiracy theories have all the trappings of a classic underdog story," wrote Rob
Brotherton in his book, Suspicious Minds . "We want to see top dogs taken down a peg;
we want the downtrodden underdog to triumph. And when it comes to conspiracy theories, unfair
disadvantage is par for the course
The best initial attitude to have is one of skepticism...not only of conspiracy theories
but of denials of conspiracy theories. Until, that is, definitive evidence is revealed. You
are a fool to believe in conspiracy theories without credible evidence You are also a fool
for denying them without evidence. The fact is that we know through credible records
including the CIA's own internal records that they have been involved with many conspiracies
with foreign militias, dictatorships, corporations, thugs, gangsters and assassins. You are a
damn fool not to take an allegation seriously and to blanket dismiss new allegations unless
proven false. In fact, the CIA had (has?) a campaign to discredit any criticism of its
policies as "conspiracy theory". Gaslighting is a common tool they have used against anyone
who dares critiques or questions them.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing.
It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy.
Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the
USA, yes or no?
The files were due to be released on this day after 25 years. In 1992, after the movie JFK
came out, people were intrigued and wanted the files released. The president ordered them
sealed for another 25 years (Oct 2017) and President Trump happens to be President. He will
release the files, if no conspiracy there, we will FINALLY get the transparency we the people
have been asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
How exactly will the files show there was "no conspiracy there"? Do you expect somehow the
files will erase the numerous eyewitness accounts of shots from in front of the
motorcade?
Not only that, but the Parkland doctors said JFK's wounds ran contrary to what the Warren
Report concluded. And the only doctor who saw both the assassination, the Parkland Hospital
work, and the Bethesda autopsy, Dr. Burkley, was never consulted by the Warren Commission,
and when asked later whether he thought shots may have hit Kennedy from more than one
direction, replied: "I don't care to comment on that."
Bugliosi was intellectually dishonest in his massive tome. He hid inconvenient facts in
order to push his agenda; i.e. that a lone gunman did all of the work alone. Serious scholars
like Newman and DiEugenio have revealed his omissions for all to see.
I can't say for sure how the Clintons did it, but we should recall that Bill met JFK in
1963 and used that opportunity to plant a miniature tracking device. Hillary, using one of
her witch spells, then met Bill earlier than officially recorded, and the two of them
recruited Oswald and Ruby, with the help of Soviet agents using Vince Foster as a temporal
go-between. Foster killed himself over his guilt in the assasination. They were desperate to
get Hillary elected to stop the release of the files, but of course they failed. Now we will
get another reason to lock her up. I have no proof but know this in my heart to be true.
They would have had to recruit Jack Ruby from organized crime --- see Who Was Jack Ruby?
by Scripps-Howard White House correspondent Seth Kantor for more on "the mob's front man when
they moved into Dallas."
Edit: Kantor was previously a reporter in Dallas-Ft. Worth and before that, a veteran of
Guadalcanal --- he played a key role in testifying that Jack Ruby, who he knew well, was at
Parkland Hospital while JFK was in Trauma Room One, which Ruby denied. The circumstances
indicate a strong possibility Ruby planted the so-called "Magic Bullet" on an unattended
stretcher.
The lame stream news media are forever searching for ways to attack Trump. You'd think he
would get some credit for releasing the 3,000 documents. But no, once again he has ulterior
motives.
I remember Walter Cronkite saying that it's difficult for people to come to the conclusion
that one man could have affected history to the extent that Oswald did.
That's a fine thought, but has nothing to do with an actual murder case in which Oswald is
supposed to have killed Patrolman Tippit and then President Kennedy, despite not one single
shred of concrete, credible evidence tying him to either of the weapons supposedly used. In
fact, even worse, the weapon or weapons used don't even consistently show up in the
chain-of-custody by the Dallas police, bullets don't match, wounds are seen by attending
physicians which had to be fired from the front, etc.
"How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back?" is one reductio of the Warren
Commission fantasies, which is why they assiduously avoided calling scores of eyewitnesses of
the assassination to testify, and mucked up the autopsy evidence. I mean, their whole "case"
amounted to "Well, Oswald was a communist" (not correct) "who hated Kennedy" (wrong again!)
"and killed a policeman" (this is completely bogus, with key Tippit-killing witness Helen
Markham described by a WC attorney as a "crackpot" among other problems) and "Oswald was at
the Texas School Book Depository" (True, he worked there in a job arranged by Ruth Paine) "so
he must have shot JFK" ---
(Wrong, the eyewitness testimony --- see The Girl on the Stairs: My Search for a Missing
Witness to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Barry Ernest, for example -- places him in
the "wrong place" to have shot anyone down in the motorcade from the sixth floor, and that's
just the first major problem, it would take too long to recount them all, as in HUNDREDS OF
PAGES, so that's just a few hints about what faces anyone investigating and/or reading about
the JFK assassination, as well as the murders of Tippit and Oswald, or Jack Ruby's extensive
ties as an organized crime factotum in Dallas and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
Adrienne Lagrange, being the highly intellectual you try and portray. Why don't you see
that by writing this negative story about President Trump you not only make yourself sound
foolish, but you push neutral people to the President's side. Why do you think former
President Bush came out after 9 years of silence to condemn "conspiracy theorist" days before
President Trump announced the release of the JFK files? President Bush sr WAS involved with
the CIA in Texas during the JFK assasination in 1963. Obviously, he does not want the truth
to come out and so he got out in front of story to discredit what the files will show.
Corruption is common in the U.S Government, President Trump is dismantling this corruption a
little bit at a time. This is only the beginning.
What more do you need? The JFK literature is voluminous, and maybe you need to actually
try to read some of the key source material and critics and go from there.
Try reading Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher or On the Trail of the
Assassins by Jim Garrison, or Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. If you have the time
to deal with over 1200 pages about the JFK assassination, read Vincent Bugliosi's
Reclaiming History , and THEN read the ferocious debunkings of Bugliosi available
online.
N.B. Some of the most important discussions in Bugliosi's massive tome are in the
Endnotes, especially but not only "What the Parkland Doctors Saw." Conspiracy of
Silence by Parkland M.D. Dr. Charles Crenshaw is another useful text, as is Mafia
Kingfish by John Davis.
Ok: my honest opinion is that you can't summarize anything as complex as the planning,
execution, and subsequent coverup of the JFK assassination (including extensive use of media
assets for DECADES afterward) in anything short of a manuscript of hundreds of pages, and
many of the best work is already available, "just google it" ---but again, you have to be
willing to read those hundreds of pages with some sense of other background facts about the
Cold War and spy agencies.
This is one of the most intricate and far reaching events or set
of interconnected events in modern history --- just take a look at the "tags" on the front
page of kennedysandking.com and you'll see what I mean.
On the only occasion in which I had time in tutorials with Chomsky, I asked him first about
his views on the nexus of players at 544 Camp Street. That question and his answer might not
even make much sense to you without extensive background reading. Sorry, but that's just the
facts.
I truly understand your point regarding the complexity of the issue and I apologize for my
earlier comment.
I'm aware of the massive inconsistencies in the examination of his body, how it was
"handled", "magic bullets", and lots of other stuff I once knew but have forgotten. There's a
LOT of stuff, that's for sure.
I'm also very aware of how certain agencies (especially intel agencies) operate. Their
allegience to the truth is suspect at best.
I guess I was asking for was something like "It was basically an effort by (a list such
as... certain elements in the FBI/CIA/NSA/government... and/or foreign governments... and/or
the Mafia... or Cuba... or it was basically a coup driven by the MIC... (which I think it
was) or whatever combination it may be)." Basically the 100k foot view, a very simplistic
view. And I realize my opinion is not _nearly_ as informed as yours.
But that would certainly open up much noise from people like that moron I blocked earlier.
And certainly no one needs more of that....
I'll check out the links. Thanks.
By the way... I met Jim Marrs twice when I lived in Texas, actually around a campfire. It
was interesting meeting him, and he was a very interesting man regarding the JFK
assassination. I didn't know he passed, apparently quite recently.
I hope these documents get released and I hope they answer a lot of the open questions
still remaining.
JFK was murdered by the CIA.....he wanted to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces
and scatter it to the winds"......he fired Allen Dulles. Dulles was one of seven
commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President
John F. Kennedy..oh and he had no problem murdering people....
I don't believe a single word from a politician. They are professional liars. It's their
job to lie and spin webs of deception. I watch and judge them by their actions.
I couldn't care less what color orange TrumPutin wears. He declared war on corporate media
and that is good enough for me. I don't support him because of his position on Snowden but I
agree with him on many issues.
JFK was a naive fool. He moved against forces he did not fully understand. I don't blame
him for trying. He was a patriot.
Atantuc reasserting it's superior newsmaking capabilities with click-bait headlines,
unsupported assumptions and trolling. Well done. You fall below tabloid, yellow
journalism.
LOL---americans are little antagonistic children that prefer lies to truth...see comments
below! and are gullible enough to believe anything told them...who needs conspiracy theories
when people are so stupid...everyone in Europe understood that americans were idiots when
they accepted the impossible claim that 1 shooter killed JFK...and now they are more stupid
believing that 1 gambler shot 500 people in las vegas...a nation of dimwits
The American public had to wait TWELVE YEARS to see the Zapruder film of the
assassination, showing the effect of the kill shot from in front of the motorcade. But by the
time Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane had become a best seller a few years after the 26 volumes
of the Warren Commission's hearings and exhibits were published (with no index --- it was
left to United Nations-employed scientist Sylvia Meagher to assemble that, which spurred
critics of the WC fantasies and outright lies to expose the multiple flaws and fallacies in
the first "official investigation," i.e., the first attempted coverup) the credibility of the
Krazy Kid Oswald nonsense was already held in disrepute by informed observers.
The article above can't whitewash the mainstream media's role in the coverup, of course ---
search "Operation Mockingbird" or "Walter Sheridan and the Garrison investigation" or " Jim
Di Eugenio critique of Phil Shenon's JFK books" etc,
Any claims that the Soviets or Cubans did it have been thoroughly debunked. It was an
American domestic coup. If you believe the Warren Commission, I've got Indian treaties to
show you.
No one has presented evidence that there was another shooter. Clint Black, the secret
service agent at the scene adamantly say's no other gunshots from the grassy knoll
area. Simply no proof. As for the Vegas shooting as well.
I disagree with your faith-based following of Bugliosi. I think Dr. Cyril Wecht blows
Bugliosi out of the water, from a forensics standpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
See the book Reclaiming Parkland for an extended dismantling of Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History, or just search "critical reviews of Bugliosi's JFK assassination book." It's an
embarrassment that Bugliosi wrote such fine books on the Simpson case and on the Supreme
Court's Bush v. Gore decision, but was apparently either blackmailed into writing obvious
lies or somehow convinced himself "no one with sufficient familiarity with the JFK
assassination in the requisite granular detail will ever read my book and expose my silly
attempts to distort the historical record." It took enormous chutzpah on his part to title
the book "Reclaiming History."
Search "Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?" at
reclaiminghistory.org , which has links to a series of reviews of Bugliosi, none of which
you will ever see discussed on CNN or any other corporate mass media outlet. Instead, without
bothering to read the book much less deal with hundreds and hundreds of footnotes and
"Endnotes," some of bear on crucial points about the JFK assassination (such as "What the
Parkland Doctors Saw" ---see the Endnotes from 404-408} the corporate media is happy to
perpetuate as best they can the "one lone nut with no ties to the CIA killed two days later
by another lone nut with no relevant ties to the mob" confabulations.
"Reclaiming Parkland" is not one I've read, but I will. I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and
do perpetuate disinformation and distraction.
Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots
and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s
exposed all sorts of similar schemes.
Search "MKUltra" and "Operation Artichoke" or just "The CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald" and you
can run across all sorts of interesting facts. not wild speculation, but facts, some of it
from CIA documents etc. etc.
Newman did his homework. He has combed through the declassified records and published his
findings on Oswald and the CIA, and on what really happened in Vietnam.
In my view the Miami and Chicago plans being aborted make the existence of multiple
shooters in Dallas-- such as Files -- more believable; the conspirators were simply not going
to miss another chance. Interestingly, Files himself says his superior told him the Dallas
plot was supposed to be called off, but they ignored the order.
Did you know that Gerald Posner, who wrote the definitive book concluding that Oswald
acted alone ("Case Closed"), is fully in favor of releasing the remainder of the documents --
in agreement with Pres. Trump's friend Roger Stone, who is a "conspiracy theorist"?
Did you know that the original "conspiracy theorist" -- the late Mark Lane -- was a
leftist and ardent supporter of JFK?
For the educated, this is about transparency, not ignorance.
Posner? Are you posting this as some kind of joke? Posner fabricated, altered, distorted
evidence on practically EVERY key point about the supposed role of Oswald, and totally
ignored all the revelations about Oswald's connections which exposed the role he played as an
intelligence agency asset.
Try reading some "critical reviews" of Case Closed, they are devastating and some are
maliciously funny, as well.
I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that if a guy like Posner is in favor of
releasing the rest of the documents, it's a non-controversial issue.
I can promise you this; Vincent Buglioti wrote THEE masterpiece. Reclaiming history, The
JFK assassination. 1612 pages, twenty year's of research, and he embarrassed every other JFK
assassination writer' I've read Posner's book. Very well researched. But truthfully, it
cannot compare to Bugliotis " opus"
Get real --- Bugliosi has been thoroughly debunked. One of his favorite tricks is to
partially quote the FBI reports from Sibert and O'Neill out-of-context and ignore
contradictory witness testimony from witnesses (and there were dozens) not called to testify
before the Warren Commission. His book (and yes, I read ALL of it but with the advantage of
having ALSO read the WC report (the 26 volumes in large part, although not the part where
they had dental x-rays from Jack Ruby's mother --- I kid you not --- so much as the
inadvertently revelatory portions) as well as dozens and dozens of other books on the
assassination, so I could immediately spot some of Bugliosi's howlers) is considered
essentially a fraud on the public by informed critics of the JFK assassination.
"Conspiracy theories are a way to stand up, through disbelief, against the powerful. Those
who spread conspiracy theories in earnest are, whether they mean to or not, partaking in an
act of defiance against established institutions as much as they are questioning accepted
truths."
I disagree. Conspiracy theories are a way for the ignorant and stupid to delude themselves
that they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Conspiracy theories provide a way of
feeling smart and shrewd without bothering with all that evidence and logic stuff.
Your comment makes no sense, since there are political assassinations like that of
Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, which have been both officially and
"unofficially" found to be the result of conspiracies. The House Select Committee on
Assassinations is one "official theory" that posits a conspiracy in the killing of President
Kennedy. You could also search "The Lincoln Conspiracy the book" and read that. In fact, you
don't have any idea at all about any of this, do you? You're just parroting some supposed
sage advice from the usual suspects.
"[L]ending credibility to the idea that the official story (sic) of JFK's assassination is
indeed suspect" is the incontrovertible fact that there are multiple "official stories," and
at least one of them posits the probability of a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination.
Since Oswald cannot even be tied to the supposed murder weapon by a credible
chain-of-evidence, nor placed in the so-called "sniper's nest" at the time shots rang out in
Dealey Plaza, nor be credibly rigged up as the killer of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, it is
hardly surprising that anyone stuck trying to defend the relentlessly debunked Warren
Commission fantasies about the JFK-Tippit-Oswald murders is up against equally relentless
debunking right up to today.
A fact that the Democratic Party toadies try to push is that Trump does not tell the
truth.
He says things that are at variance with the claims the "press" try to toss at the people,
but that doesn't make them untrue.
The "press" was determined to tell people that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by Spain, even
though it made no sense for them to be engage in aggressive actions that the New York Journal
claimed would then escalate into overt military action. If they felt that way, they would
have acted militarily from the start. Morons never questioned this and the U.S. easily
entered war with Spain. Even though the explosion on the Maine seems to have been the result
of a carelessly disposed of cigar.
Similarly with R.M.S. Lusitania. Imbeciles wouldn't ask why the Germans would engage in
something like murdering innocent civilians on an ocean liner if they wanted war. Why not
just carry out an invasion or declare war? Only now it's being admitted that Lusitania was
illegally carrying war supplies and ammunition from the U.S. to the Allies, making it a
legitimate target. Indeed, it is not necessarily proved that it actually carried civilian
passengers.
Similarly for the claims the the U.S. spied on the USSY with U-2 spy planes. The same with
the failure of the government and the "press" to admit the suspicious nature of claims of the
"Gulf of Tonkin Incident".
The fact is, Trump and others in the Republican Party have said many things that the
"press" denied, only to have the "press" shown to be lying later.
Hillary Clinton supporters were carrying out acts of violence after the election in
Trump's name to try to undermine him. Germany didn't pay its agreed upon amount for the
maintenance of NATO. Obama did bug Trump's campaign headquarters. Puerto Rico's sorry
condition is the result of massive corruption in its government. There are many women who, as
Trump asserted, will let a man with money and power take liberties. In fact, climate isn't
changing. "Climate" is the massive, interconnected, self regulating system comprised of
things like land, ocean, sky, solar energy, life. Land, ocean, solar energy, life are no
different from fifty years ago. Only the weather is changing, and that is caused by
chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather modification chemicals from high
flying jets, producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon
and can last for an hour or more. Stop chemtrails and everything will return to normal.
Todd Akin was criticized for saying that, in "legitimate rape" women's bodies will fight
being impregnated. Democratic Party followers insisted Akin was saying rape was legal. He was
referring to rapes that actually occurred, not lies that many women do lodge against rich and
powerful men to get money.
J. Edgar Hoover said that "civil rights" marches and such were tools of the Kremlin to try
to undermine democracy. In their desperate attempt to rescue the claim that the Russians
interfered with the 2016 election, none other than The Atlantic has taken up Hoover's
insistence that such demonstrations were a means used by the USSR to try to destroy
democracy. And the dullards of the Democratic Party's target audience won't realize they are
now agreeing with the Republicans.
Trump and the politicians come from rarefied levels that know facts that government and
the "press" lies to the public about. One fact, that there may be actual sections of
government, or "government", that act independently of any rules and can even roll over the
rest of "government". "Government" is just a sleazy swindle to make the rich richer. No one
controls them! Not even elections! They publish fake "vote tallies", then put who they want
in. Trump speaks of the Deep State of power mongering going on behind the scenes. Hillary
Clinton operated her own shadow government with a system of unregistered servers only one of
which has been acknowledged. It's been suspected for a long time that the "intelligence
network" acted solely on its own recognizance, answerable to no one. Questions Trump raises
can point people to the truth.
"My" research? Look, just GO ONLINE to another website like
JFKfacts.org or kennedysand king.com
, or search "James Di Eugenio on the JFK assassination," I have read around 150 books and
articles and much of the Warren Report (the volumes not the summary) and the House Select
Committee hearings reports, but compared to "serious researchers" I am a dilletante. Besides,
you really NEED to study this either for yourself as a kind of "research project" or if
possible, in a university level course environment.
There are THOUSANDS of really interesting books about aspects of the JFK assassination ---
search "Reclaiming Parkland" by Di Eugenio and go from there, whatever.
Follow the links, and expect it to take many many hours to get the beginning of an
understanding.
Ok, why don't you at least realize it's FAR more complex than any possible "avionics
system," it's something akin to people on Quora asking me to "summarize Hamlet," or
"summarize King Lear." It's just absurd. Besides which, the subject matter is far too
important for anyone to take their views from a few summarized paragraphs, whether about
Hamlet or Lear or the JFK assassination.
So yeah, I did "research" and I think the facts speak for themselves, as you would learn by
delving into the posts at
jfkfacts.org or
kennedysandking.com , or reading Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. The thing is, it's one of
the most complicated interlocking sets of topics in modern history, not something that can be
scrawled on a postcard.
This is great comment: " One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not
the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals,
that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that
the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break
down. "
Notable quotes:
"... The Reactionary Mind ..."
"... The Art of the Deal ..."
"... TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita. ..."
"... The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte. ..."
"... When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that. ..."
"... That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law? ..."
"... Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist. ..."
"... During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. ..."
"... It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. ..."
"... Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid. ..."
"... One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. ..."
"... Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression). ..."
"... When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing. ..."
"... For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. ..."
"... I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything? ..."
"... The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue. ..."
"... Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.'' ..."
"... Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists. ..."
"... It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice]. ..."
"... What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. ..."
"... Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. ..."
"... there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: ..."
"... Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism. ..."
"... The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful. ..."
"... This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened. ..."
"... Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite". ..."
"... The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole. ..."
"... An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method. ..."
"... No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again. ..."
"... There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science. ..."
"... Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is. ..."
"... A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it." ..."
"... My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus. ..."
"... Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' " ..."
"... I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be. ..."
"... what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness. ..."
"... If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria. ..."
"... Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news. ..."
October 12, 2017 The magazine n+1 is running an
excerpt
from the second edition of The Reactionary Mind , which comes out next week but is
available for purchase now . The n+1 piece is titled "The Triumph of the Shill: The
political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state." It's my most considered reflection on what Trump_vs_deep_state represents, based
on a close reading of The Art of the Deal (yes, I know he didn't write it, but it's far
more revelatory of the man and what he thinks than even its ghostwriter realized) and some of his
other writings and speeches, as well as the record of Trump's first six months in office.
Here are some excerpts from the excerpt, but I hope you'll buy the book, too. It's got a lot of
new material, particularly about the economic ideas of the right. And a long, long chapter on Trump
and Trump_vs_deep_state.
... ... ...
This is what makes Trump's economic philosophy, such as it is, so peculiar and of its moment.
An older generation of economic Darwinists, from William Graham Sumner to Ayn Rand, believed without
reservation in the secular miracle of the market. It wasn't just the contest that was glorious;
the outcome was, too. That conviction burned in them like a holy fire. Trump, by contrast, subscribes
and unsubscribes to that vision. The market is a moment of truth -- and an eternity of lies.
It reveals; it hides. It is everything; it is nothing. Rand grounded her vision of capitalism
in A is A; Trump grounds his in A is not A.
TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism,
though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives
found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives
before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the
"nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war;
the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp
and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As
his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society."
Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals
he's not sure add up to much.
I'll be doing a bunch of interviews about the book, including one with our very own Henry, so
keep an eye out at my blog for more information
on that.
Dr. Hilarius 10.12.17 at 4:54 am (no link)
Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron
and Evita.
kidneystones 10.12.17 at 2:19 pm (no link)
@12 The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing
he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans
voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't
need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that
he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte.
He looks certain at this point to thread the needle for 2020 at the expense of both Republicans
and Democrats. He may very well simplify the tax code and get rather more done in his second year
in office. His first year has and will be devoted to pure survival – defending his corner and
maintaining his base. Trump supporters, myself included, are anti-politician, and unsympathetic
to faction and ideology, which is part of the reason I really do question Corey's efforts to make
Trump part of a conservative movement.
When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing.
The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies
expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved
of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has
less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the
right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified
and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that.
Every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to utter another blatant falsehood, I feel better
about the results of 2016. There is, as Corey notes, an emptiness at the heart of the conservative
movement. The same can be said of liberals who are, if anything, in even greater disarray than
conservatives. The great society experiments yield, in 2016, appalling failure rates among America's
African-American youth to follow decades of failure as the African-American family unit dis-integrates.
Liberals are all out of answers, as are theological conservatives. Perhaps the reality is that
ordinary Americans, and others across the globe, are actually far less polarized than the pundits
tell us.
We might very well go down some ugly path to war and disaster, but is seems to me just as likely
that life will actually go on much as it has, only with fewer wars and slightly more charity towards
each other. Cause just yammering about the blah-blah-blah is getting mighty old.
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:03 pm (no link)
kidneystones @15 That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since
being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the
details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support
of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing
else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are
you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law?
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:10 pm (no link)
p.s. In terms of ignorant presidents in recent memory, Reagan and G.W. Bush come close to Trump,
but Trump outdoes them. (Though in a competition on that score between Reagan and Trump, it might
be close to a tie.)
As far as I can tell, your claim so far (in this and other posts) is that Trump should be seen
first of all as a conservative: those who see him as a radical break from US conservatism have
an idealized version of what the GOP and the right have actually been throughout their history.*
I tend to agree with this (e.g. the GOP has been very racist since many decades) but with two
important qualifications that I have never seen you make:
a) Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc.
Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with
the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two
decades, had been very much internationalist.
b) During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government
intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and
his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably
not going to follow through. Given his general cluelessness, he is also captured by the various
randians who populate the GOP ranks. But, differently from many politicians on the right, in primis
the randians, Trump has some sense for what people want. And in the campaign he said it, possibly
opening up the field for future Keynesians republicans.
*You hedge this view a bit in this post, by considering Trump's view of the market.
Collin Street thinks that conservatism is some kind of organic affliction, that conservatives
all have something wrong with their brain chemistry or biology, that they are all cognitively
abnormal. This is absurd.
It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense
of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. Were the believers
in the divine right of monarchs mentally abnormal? Were those who believed (and continue to believe)
that employers have a right to exploit their workers mentally ill? Were, to take an even starker
example, proponents of slavery psychologically impaired? If so, how to account for the fact that
slavery was close to universal among human societies until fairly recently in the history of the
species? Were the vast majority of humans all psychologically impaired until some date of enlightenment
(pick your date or century)?
Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality,
and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically
impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient
"theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable,
and historically invalid.
One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is
surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics
works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class
will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down.
The alternatives seem to be to change the consensus, or spread bullshit that the consensus
is OK but just needs to be tweaked a bit. Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a
liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened
with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression).
This excerpt seems to take a fairly dim view of the left and what it's had to offer in recent
years, and I can't say I really disagree, but I think Corey is underestimating the extent to which
a leftist resurgence is already underway. I still think 2008 was a turning point, not because
Obama himself really represented a new view of American liberalism (frankly, I think a hypothetical
Gore or Kerry administration would have been extremely similar to what we got from Obama), but
because the energy people invested in Obama's vision of America has never really dissipated. I
think liberals are liberals in large part because they prefer futurism to nostalgia, so it shouldn't
have been surprising that the candidate of "hope and change" beat a candidate whose political
persona is frozen in the mid-90s.
When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked
out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy
and BLM to the Sanders campaign.
The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate
(Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think),
but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would
ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation
seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed
the party's rightward swing.
For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal"
candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways
to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. We put up
with it because we were told that was the only way to keep Republican robber barons from reinstating
white male supremacy, criminalizing poverty, and declaring war on human decency. Trump was the
embodiment of that venal reactionary bogeyman and Clinton was supposed to be the bullwark of reason
and common sense -- the "electable" candidate -- that kept the far right at bay. George W. Bush
was a decent-seeming guy whose dad was president. Losing to him was tolerable if frustrating,
but Clinton losing feels like a broken promise, like the deal with the devil we made back in '92
is now null and void and it's time for something new.
I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of
moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right
on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't
buy you anything?
"We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" is not president, and African-Americans are no longer
chained to the ineffective policies of the Democratic party and teachers unions. The neo-cons
are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic
party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long
may this continue.
A sociopath can be very good at reading and manipulating others. Having a theory of mind
is quite distinct from having empathy, and having empathy is quite distinct from using it pervasively
to guide personal/social/political life.
There's a few simple tricks, is the only word that works, I think, that you can do without
needing any insight into how people work. Stuff like being silent and letting people run their
mouth out, or being vague so that you can redefine what you meant post-facto and claiming success,
or the gish-gallop technique or a few other rhetorical tricks that can be used to confuse/blindside
people in various ways.
Power-sales techniques and what-have-you.
"Tricks", because if they work they work by mechanical rule-following and if people know enough
to recognise them they don't work at all. You don't need particular insight to use any of these,
you just need an audience that doesn't recognise them and isn't told about them. A lot
of the communication ones, in particular, rely on abuse of normal discourse structures/pragmatics,
which means that they're actually things that people with autism-spectrum conditions -- that severely
disrupt normal pragmatic structures -- might stumble into by, literally, accident.
With a drive to succeed and a handful of these tricks you can -- with luck, and we only hear
about the successes: there's an old technique for building a reputation that starts by sending
out 1024 letters that A will happen, and another 1024 saying the exact opposite -- build a small
fortune. But if you run into more-experienced players who can recognise the tricks you're using,
then you're not going to succeed against them, and it might go badly for you. Or they might give
you a half-million in fuck-off money just to get you out of their way, and you'd probably think
yourself awesome for getting it.
But since I haven't read a lot of Burke I need to decide, provisionally, whether to go with
the view that e.g. Reflections on the Revolution in France is a manifestation of "autism" or whether
to go with the view that it's a statement and elaboration of the author's political convictions.
I can't exactly see how the two descriptions you've provided are incompatible; can you explain
why you feel you need to decide, why do you feel that they can't both be true?
Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla
sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion
for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate
clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe
schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.''
America's cities are under Democratic control, for the most part, and the studies, the plans,
and the programs, and the teachers' unions haven't got the job done, unless creating a cycle of
failure and illiteracy qualifies as some form of progress, or success.
Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and
black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists.
If Democrats can't provide solutions for ordinary people at the state, local and national level
the party is going to continue to keep losing elections.
"Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a
version of Conservatism". Orwell in his review of "Mein Kampf".
Ah, there it is, the good shit, the barely-warmed-over Manhattan Institute talking points that
the conservative lie machine has been pushing for ages.
It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination,
to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary,
in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely
Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice].
It is exactly the kind of short-sighted maneuver that Democrats have been pulling for decades
now, trying to get "moderate" Republicans in the suburbs to vote for them, and its only effect
has been to undermine the concept of public education entirely. Some of the most vigorous advocates
of charter schools and union-busting have been Democrats, for fuck's sake! A nonexhaustive list:
Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuel, and these are just the first three I could think of off
the top of my head; I guarantee that I could find you an list as long as your arm if I tried.
Top Democratic donors such as those from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are gung-ho about charter
schools and other similar scams like "online education." In the meantime, the actual research
shows that at best, charter schools are a wash in terms of performance and at worst they are basically
a fraud perpetrated upon both taxpayers and students in order to shovel money to people like DeVos.
What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public
governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves.
On the right-wing side, a propaganda machine has existed since the 1950s to sell people various
poisonous ideas (regulation is bad! the "free market" is good!) dressed up, in the best of times,
in quasi-academic language, and in the worst of times as just plain racism. The retreat from public
services that took place in the South once those services would have to be integrated is a great
tell; wealthy Virginians literally closed the entire state's public school system rather
than have to attend school with black children. On the center-left, the entire New Democrat generation
drank the idiot Kool-Aid that demanded we turn over anything and everything to market forces but!
with a slightly more advanced degree of wokeness. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the CTU, under a predominantly
black and Latino leadership, has been
at the forefront (PDF) of fighting privatization and the attendant segregation that follows
it, demanding resources from the austerity-mad Emmanuel administration so they can actually do
their jobs. Said fight, I should add, taking place with the support of the predominantly African-American
communities that are currently being brutalized by Rahm, so maybe if you care about black agency
as much as you claim you do (hahahaha) you might take that into account.
The Democratic party has not been nearly as good to the African-American community as the latter's
loyalty to the former (or, really, as basic justice) would seem to require, but the failure has
not been "too much Great Society programs" or "too many unionized teachers." That's tendentious,
ahistorical horseshit. The real failure has been the Democratic willingness to cast its most solid
coalition partner again and again into a racist market system in which they have to fight uphill
battles every step of the way. That Democrats are still a preferable alternative to the open eliminationism
of Trump supporters is not particularly to their credit, not when entire Democratic administrations
have failed to protect African-Americans from predatory lending or housing and workplace discrimination
or being killed by police officers or even do so much as keep them from being forced to drink
lead-tainted water.
Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public
goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. Lots of white people, but
especially the petit bourgeoisie that constitutes the core of Republican voters (who are, shock
of shocks, also the core of Trump voters), would rather eat dirt if it means that a black person
somewhere will have to eat shit, and unfortunately for all of us, the idiotic electoral system
we inherited from the slavers played to their advantage in this electoral cycle. Now Trump is
going to decertify the Iran deal so go take your "hurrrr neocons out" nonsense and shove it up
your ass, because all the same fucking lunatics who want to turn the Middle East into glass are
still in charge everywhere and a literally demented person holds the nuclear codes because showing
the libs whatfor is the only ideal that white middle America is even capable of processing anymore.
JRLRC 61 Thanks for some historical perspective. Reading this thread makes me give up hope for
the American Republic. Your leader misses no opportunity to exhibit contempt for democracy, contempt
for the rule of law, contempt for international treaty obligations, contempt for the UN world
order, contempt for diplomacy, contempt for truth, contempt for science, a guy who in real time
threatens to start a nuclear world war (remember CR wrote a whole post dismissing the idea that
Trump was reckless), and you people explain him away as just another conservative? Have you really
no sense of history? Frankly you must be out of your minds.
"We have seen that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of
production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility
for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source
of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on This
social function is already losing importance and is bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in
the future even if the economic process itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went
on unabated. economic progress tends to become depersonalized and automatized. (p.132)
"Of old, roughly up to and including the Napoleonic Wars, generalship meant leadership and
success meant the personal success of the man in command who earned corresponding "profits" in
terms of social prestige This is no longer so. Rationalized and specialized office work will eventually
blot out personality, the calculable result, the "vision." The leading man no longer has the opportunity
to fling himself into the fray. He is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not
always difficult to replace. in the last analysis the same social process -- undermines the role
and, along with the role, the social position of the capitalist entrepreneur. His role, though
less glamorous than that of medieval warlords, great or small, also is or was just another form
of individual leadership acting by virtue of personal force and personal responsibility for success
(p.133)
" contrasting the figure of the industrialist or merchant with that of the medieval lord. The
latter's "profession" not only qualified him admirably for the defense of his own class interest
-- he was not only able to fight for it physically -- but it also cast a halo around him and made
of him a ruler of men Of the industrialist and merchant the opposite is true. There is surely
no trace of any mystic glamour about him which is what counts in the ruling of men. The stock
exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. We have seen that the industrialist and merchant,
as far as they are entrepreneurs, also fill a function of leadership. But economic leadership
of this type does not readily expand, like the medieval lord's military leadership, into the leadership
of nations. On the contrary, the ledger and the cost calculation absorb and confine He can only
use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will. He
can impress by what people may expect from his economic performance, he can argue his case, he
can promise to pay out money or threaten to withhold it, he can hire the treacherous services
of a condottiere or politician or journalist. But that is all and all of it is greatly overrated
as to its political value the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic
and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance. (pp.137-8)
" capitalist policies wrought destruction much beyond what was unavoidable. They attacked the
artisan in reservations in which he could have survived for an indefinite time. They forced upon
the peasant all the blessings of early liberalism -- the free and unsheltered holding and all
the individualist rope he needed in order to hang himself In breaking down the pre-capitalist
framework of society, capitalism thus broke not only barriers that impeded its progress but also
flying buttresses that prevented its collapse. That process, impressive in its relentless necessity,
was not merely a matter of removing institutional deadwood, but of removing partners of the capitalist
stratum, symbiosis with whom was an essential element of the capitalist schema. Having discovered
this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look
upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage
of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism." (p.139)
Schumpeter, from Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ch. 7
Jerry Vinokurov@71 writes "there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between 'mainstream' Republicans
and Trump when it comes to the lust for war "
This is overly optimistic in a way, yet overly pessimistic in another. For the first, there's
no daylight between Trump and "mainstream" Democrats when it comes to a lust for war.
For the second? It's clear both parties would support Trump if he ordered a decapitation strike
on North Korea, and it's likely both parties would support Trump if it failed and turned into
an all-out conflagration, no matter the fallout. But, the last president apt to such unilateral
war-making was Richard Nixon, and he was impeached for also discarding the two-party deal (a no
no on par with a Mexican President taking a second term.) Before the fact, however, there are
straws in the wind about impeachment, from the Washington Post op-ed, columnists Rubin and Waldman,
and "rumors" reported in Vanity Fair. Not a bright prospect, to be sure, no daylight at all?
The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap.
At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the
US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties,
which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste
in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many,
many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful.
I recall a story that Nixon boasted that after he was finished, they'd never make things like
they were again. That's the political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state. Today, when people will seriously argue
that Nixon was a liberal president, there is no ruling class appetite for democracy, old style
or bourgeois or what have you.
b9n10nt @68 links to Ta-Nehisi Coates. Coates knows perfectly well that if the black voters
had turned out in larger numbers, Clinton would have won the Electoral College as well. People
trying to normalize Trump are not alone, Every single black voter who didn't see any difference
between Clinton and Trump agrees. Clinton tried to make the campaign about a symbolic endorsement
of anti-racism and anti-sexism, as opposed to the deplorables. Millions of black voters proved
they were having none of it. They stayed home.
OP: "conservatives have breached norms, flouted decorum, assailed elites, and shattered orthodoxy
throughout the ages." But is that not also exactly what anti-conservatives – progressives, revolutionaries
– have done? Or is it the wrong sort of breaching, flouting, assailing, shattering when conservatives,
not your friends, do it; but SOP when your friends do it?
Or are you maintaining that respectable norm-adhering, decorum-maintaining, elite-sustaining,
deeply orthodox left-wingers have always been the vast majority of anti-conservatives?
On further thought: elite-sustaining, yes, maybe, if you regard the nomenklatura as elite.
Orthodox also, for their own kind of orthodoxy.
None of this is intended to imply support for the remarkable Trump.
I wonder if that qualifies as push-polling? Is asking the question propaganda? This is
a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy
into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not
clear any "meddling" happened.
nastywoman
Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people
(not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers
or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them
or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to
me the other day as "erudite".
The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard
to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going
is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual
Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the
blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives
is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to
be fitted with cheap hyperbole.
An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base
of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an
answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method.
No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly
believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays
just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor
base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't
nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and
hey, maybe young people will trust you again.
There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according
to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor
a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts.
Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation
of law or even the progress of science.
In politics, the absence of the restraints imposed by institutions of law or science (which
often fail their purposes even in those domains) invite the practice of dark arts of propaganda
and mass manipulation. Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide
a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the
public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business
advertising is.
A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of
facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy,
nothing will disprove it."
Last week's New Yorker has a profile of Rachel Maddow.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/rachel-maddow-trumps-tv-nemesis
Janet Malcolm is full of praise for Maddow. For what she identifies, correctly, as entertainment.
She does not comment on whether political comment as entertainment makes for a healthy politics.
I think not.
My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed
and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty
years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha"
moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes.
But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly
this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences
and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is
still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about
Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and
Trump is a bonus.
I was not intending to distinguish actual from real, if that was a question. I was intending
to distinguish objectively factual statements or descriptive observation from arguments taking
the form of narratives, particularly projective or counterfactual narratives that seem distant
from or untethered in the main from verifiable fact.
I think it is possible to make value judgments closely related to factual observation, without
projecting a narrative into the future or into an alternate reality.
Whether my statements characterizing Trump constitute a narrative or rely on narrative to justify
value judgments is a fine point I do not see the point in arguing at this time. I would not defend
my observations and judgment as constituting the one "true story".
"Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook
and other internet platforms could have on public discourse. Pariser began the book research when
he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links
more than my conservative friends' -- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either,"
he wrote. 'So no conservative links for me.'
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media
might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion
News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding
to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly
difficult to have a public argument.' "
I think everyone here agrees we have problems to address. If the solutions I supported most
of my life were working in places such as California, I wouldn't feel the need for radical change.
Had the Democratic candidate not supported the Iraq war, alongside Biden, McCain et al, and then
'learned' her lesson by violent regime-change in Libya (described by Obama as a 'shit-show'),
and then embarked upon program of cash collection from the powerful and secrecy towards her coronation,
I might have wavered back towards the Dems. Bernie would have drawn me like a magnet. But given
the choice between the devil I know and the one I don't I choose the latter. Trump may yet screw
things up and people are free to disagree about his skills and solutions.
It's pretty easy today to forget that both Bill and Hillary attended Trump's (most recent)
wedding. Their daughter Chelsea is/was a good friend of Ivanka Trump (a convert to Judaism) and
her husband. The criticism of bedrock conservatives repeatedly loudly and publicly even today,
is that Trump is more of a Democrat than a conservative.
I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon
that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat
him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically
nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the
world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be.
Corey, it's a must read, especially for those in your field and for anyone interested in how
information is being manufactured, filtered, distributed, and internalized.
Hint: we don't know whattf others are reading and thinking, and won't be finding out anytime
soon.
I don't think Clinton would have cancelled the Iran agreement because it leaves the US exposed
as the one clearly breaking its word, annoying its allies. I think she would have found cleverer
ways to be bellicose. For instance, her supporter Michael Morell told Charlie Rose we should be
covertly killing Iranians and Russians in Syria so that they would know we did it. He didn't spell
it out, but by saying "covert" he meant we would deny it publicly. Clinton also wanted protected
zones for refugees, which in practice would mean massive air strikes and ground forces and in
a sanctuary for rebels to use as they strike at the Syrians and Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah.
Before someone objects to irrelevant Clinton bashing, there is a larger point. Trump is awful
and I favor removing him via the 25th Amendment because I think he might start a war with N Korea.
But a great many of Trump's opponents are opposed to him because he is an incompetent boob and
not because they oppose American warmongering. They favor it, but don't trust Trump to do it correctly.
@122 I'm going to respectfully leave that for you to figure out on your own. I'll close all further
communication with you by suggesting that your aggressive and uniformly uncharitable reading of
the remarks of others may complicate your understanding of relatively simple statements.
@123 I enjoy your comments very much, generally. And 123 is entirely fair.
I find very little in Trump's first term that is remarkable, or revolutionary. He seems to
understand that he can't go to war with a Republican party he's ostensibly supposed to lead. Corey
and others are correct, I believe, in asserting that Trump is fundamentally uninterested in governing,
and entirely wrapped up in frequent external validations. I'll add that he thrives on conflict
and perhaps instinctively knows how and when to rally his base. I've certainly seen him switch
gears/targets during rallies when he senses he's losing the crowd.
Unlike you, and probably many others, I don't take anything any politician says seriously,
especially Trump. Actions, rather than words, matter far more. Trump might like to get credit
for a decapitation strike on NK and I think you nailed it when you noted that such a strike would
win him bi-partisan support. He's more interested, imho, in getting credit for a golden economic
age however fanciful that notion may be.
Overall, I still defer to Scott Adams and look forward to his new book (any day)
"Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter." By all means buy Corey's Book, but
keep Adams in the back of your mind for light reading.
Trump may well blow us all up, but I've been told that could happen pretty much every day since
I can recall. What I can say, re: Kim, is that I was here in Japan when Bill Clinton started looking
seriously at removing Kim and all the Americans I knew here were crapping themselves. Can't see
it happening simply because nobody wants to see downtown Seoul and Tokyo vaporized, one of which
is a near-certainty, and that's if the conflict remains contained. The 1 percent in China, the
US, Korea, Russia, and Japan aren't about to let anybody risk a regional conflagration.
Michael Morell is a former CI A director and I saw speculation that he was a likely member of
a Clinton Administration. About the same time that he appeared on Charlie Rose he had also published
an op ed endorsing Clinton for President.
But you also ignored my other points. Clinton favored a safe zone in Syria, which is tantamount
to an invasion of Syria and armed conflict with their government and its allies. And Clinton herself
was and is representative of a large number of Very Serious People who thought Obama had botched
Syria by not intervening on a large enough scale. There is a big constituency for more vigorous
action against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. ( There is also a constituency for more intervention
in the Ukraine.). Clinton was clearly part of that. She also told AIPAC that we needed to take
our relationship with Israel to the next level, and the only comment I recall reading about her
regarding Yemen was about Iranian intervention, but to be honest I would need to look that up
to be sure.
Clinton pushed for the Libyan intervention.
Again, she is irrelevant now, but she was part of the group who wanted yet more American military
intervention in the Middle East. That group is still around. Your response was to avoid all my
points and to pretend Morrell is just some random supporter.
Last comment of the day. But I googled and found something I didn't know. Morell was one of her
advisors last fall and said we should be stopping and boarding Iranian ships to prevent them from
sending weapons to the Houthis.
J-D 'Can you explain how the construction of Trump in an (illustrative example) imagined narrative
differs from an objective description of Trump?'
Here is a quote from a Vox article dated Oct 13: ". . . obviously, there's Donald Trump, who
has dispensed with one democratic norm after another. He's fired an FBI director in order to undercut
an investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Moscow . . ."
The article is not about Trump. Sean Illing, the author, is using Trump as an illustration.
Or, rather he is using a narrative about Trump where Trump colluded with the Russian state to
win election by foul means. If you accept the donnée of Trump's collusion with Russia, then it
follows that Trump fired Comey in what practically amounts to obstruction of justice. And, a considerable
volume of reporting has supported that narrative. One set of reports had Comey fired right after
he made a budget request to fund an expanded investigation. A dossier put together by a British
spy implied that Trump was being blackmailed by Russians. A meeting of arranged by one of Trump's
sons with a Russian lawyer was supposedly baited with an offer of dirt on Clinton and this meeting
has been interpreted as confirming the Trump campaign's willingness to collude. There has been
a lot of speculation in the Media in support of this narrative is my point. At the time Comey
was fired, there was a great volume of speculation centered on what Trump said in his letter dismissing
Comey, calling into question the claim by Trump that Comey had assured Trump on three occasions
that Trump himself was not under investigation. In support of the narrative that Trump had obstructed
justice, Comey's character and positive reputation were touted by some journalists.
But, despite the tremendous volume of journalistic speculation structured around this narrative
of collusion, there are no confirmed and unambiguous facts to support it. So, Illing must qualify
his use of the narrative as an example of bad behavior with the insertion of the weasel words,
"possible collusion".
In a better world than the one we are living in, responsible journalists are careful and judicious
in both verifying facts and grounding the narratives they use with facts. The facts that can be
ascertained and verified become constraints on the story, on the choice of narrative. That does
not necessarily happen. Sometimes, journalists go with a "good story" that resonates with readers
and attracts clicks or viewers. And, they construe such facts as there are in ways that support
the chosen narrative without exercising judgment or attempting verification. The story -- the
choice of narrative script -- becomes a constraint on the facts and their interpretation.
I think the balance of available factual evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump did not
collude with the Russian state to defeat Clinton. An honest and balanced "objective" description
of factors affecting the electoral outcome and Trump's conduct do not support the idea that there
was collusion or even that the Russians did much of anything to affect the election beyond openly
funding a cable news channel. The dossier peddled by the British ex-spy was pretty ridiculous
on its face. The Comey budget request was a pure invention. Responsible journalists would have
attempted to verify details in the dossier or reported on how absurd many parts of it were. Journalists
assessing Comey's character might have taken a more critical perspective.
If the factual basis for "possible collusion" is taken away, the obstruction of justice charge
evaporates. Trump becomes a President who does not want to be dogged by a groundless investigation,
fishing for a blue dress until it finds one. Trump the President finds he does not want to have
the hack, Comey hanging out. Useful when he was tripping up his opponent, not so attractive as
a companion.
Trump viewed plainly is still a fairly alarming figure to have in a powerful office, but a
narrative of traitorous collusion with a national enemy, titillating as it may be as news entertainment,
is not descriptively accurate given the available evidence and appropriately balanced methods
of evaluating that evidence. (During the campaign, Trump called on Russia to disclose the emails
Clinton claimed to have deleted. I suppose one could take that as a joke or a call for collusion
with Boris and Natasha. I think joke is the better, more natural interpretation.)
You did it again, layman. I refuted what you said to me even if you take it in the narrowest possible
way. You objected to my reference to Morell's statement, implying that he was just some random
Clinton supporter using some silly argument about. " Donald Johnson supporter" who drowns kittens.
I showed that this argument was wrong and Morell was one of Clinton's advisors. If you want to
stick to issues, then stick to them and don't make silly arguments and get them wrong.
The larger point is that in Washington the fight between Trump and many ( obviously not all)
of his critics is a fight between two groups of militarists.. It would be good if people acknowledged
this. In a way it is three groups of militarists,, since Trump's personal incoherence makes him
a group unto himself. But on Iran there is an important disagreement between those who want to
dump the nuclear agreement and those who want to adhere to it, but are otherwise hardliners who
badly want more confrontation.
On your main point, when you aren't trivializing mine, yes, Trump is worse than Clinton because
he is not only an arrogant militarist (a trait he shares with Clinton and many others), but ignorant
and irrational.
Layman, small differences between Clinton and Trump do not dominate Clinton's very large political
defects. You had an argument for relentlessly focusing on differences to the exclusion of appreciating
the whole reality, maybe, when there was a choice on an upcoming ballot. Now, we live in the shadow
of Clinton's defects: her defects gave us Trump. And, those defects are not so much the qualities
of an individual person -- Clinton or Trump -- as they are the persistent institutional personalities
of large political factions and institutional actors: the Democratic Party establishment, the
Deep State intelligence agencies and military-industrial complex, the Foreign Policy Blob, the
corporate Media, et cetera.
Bullying others in comments over such fine points as whether Clinton would have respected
certain forms of the Iran nuclear deal is not contributing much to the discussion. We can see
that Trump is hostile to that agreement and is cynically manipulating the forms in ways likely
to make the agreement come apart. What relevance a counterfactual projection of Clinton's behavior
might have is not clear; asserting that acceptance of such a counterfactual as "true" should be
a dispositive criteria for rationality borders on the bizarre.
The relevant fact is not some putative small differences between Trump and Clinton (and the
factions and interests and institutionalized views she sought to represent as a fully paid-up
member of the Foreign Policy Blob), but the near-absence in American politics of a countervailing
force to the consensus of views and interests promoting a palsied, nearly mindless imperial aggression.
Morell's views are relevant to showing just how extreme and reckless is this "center" that Clinton
represented, and understanding how and why the "center" is not doing much to restrain the Trump.
Some powerful forces cultivated by the Democratic establishment have always been hostile to Iran,
supportive of Saudi Arabia and so on.
TM, the idea that CR is minimizing Trump seems bizarre to me. If anyone understands the incoherent
viciousness of conservatism as the impulse to dominate in a hierarchical polity, it is our gracious
host. Trump is expressing conservative ideas and impulses that have always been there. He is not
new. That bit of narrative hyperbole -- that Trump is different from all those nice responsible
conservatives of the past -- is a dangerous deception. What is different in our political moment
is the collapse of effective opposition from the left and centre-left. Trump is so scary because
so little stands in his way, so little compels him (or the various factions enjoying the power
associated with the authority of office under his aegis, including the practical military junta
at the core of his Administration) to moderate his policies, let alone his rhetoric.
what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket
obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in
many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about
very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness.
Also, too: I've said I think she's bad on militarism. I'm not interested in, and don't,
defend the other side of that argument. I just don't have any patience for the sort of nonsense
that wants to paint her as an eater of babies. She's a bog-standard, mainstream adherent of
the global diplomatic, economic and military order. That's not good, but it ain't Satan either.
The global diplomatic, economic and military order is downright evil and full-scale babyeating.
Ask around in Yemen, Syria, Lybia, etc. So yes, she has that Satan streak. That that's bog-standard
and mainstream is horrific, but I grant you that's the world we live in.
Note, BTW, that she was directly involved in at least some of these actions. She has, even
now, more blood on her hands than Trump.
Layman, this is the third time your response is frustratingly beside the point and after this
I am giving up, because you are just going to continue doing it. I didn't just quote other people.
I said Clinton supported intervention in Syria, that she supported the Libyan intervention and
of course she voted for the Iraq War. She is also a standard AIPAC panderer. Do your own googling
if you actually care about this rather than try to save face in some internet thread. It's well
known Clinton is a hawk.
My point was that yes, she is a bog standard militarist and one of the points I was making
is that even if she is no longer relevant, the people who are militaristic in their attitudes
still are. You are the one between the two of us who wants to make it mainly about Clinton, but
since you brought up baby eating, that is you once again trivializing the consequences of bog
standard US militarism.
'Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare,
including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced
on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."'
All of the foregoing actions could have been predicted during the campaign.
It is quite true that the U.S. has interfered in the elections of other nations, with disastrous
consequences for many of those nations. Why this should tie hands now is not clear to me. Highly
unlikely the Russians were engaged in righteous retribution for Mossadegh. I suspect some would
be taking a less dismissive tone had, say, the Chinese interfered on behalf of Clinton the bloodthirsty.
Layman@159 :
Based on this and your prior comment, you're asking for counterfactuals, because of course
Clinton-the-non-President is not capable of being even as bad as let alone worse than Trump-the-President.
However, based on your comments elsewhere in the thread, you're dismissing any counterfactuals
out of hand. Taken together, this is not a tack taken by someone who is interested in a serious
dialogue, or really, any dialogue. Can we dispense with that sort of horseshit?
Either Clinton has no relevance at all, in which case you can forgo with the pedantic lectures
about how she's vastly superior in all ways to Trump (
@95 ) and we can hopefully resume forgetting that she exists, or the comparison of a hypothetical
Clinton presidency to the current administration has some value in the conversation even when
someone other than you is making it (
@96 ). Until and unless you're willing and able to unravel the fundamental contradiction between
these perfectly incompatible stances – which have infected every exchange you've made downthread
of the them – there's no point at all in trying to discuss this with you in any detail, and there's
certainly no reason for us to run and fetch answers for you in response to your ever-changing
standards.
I didn't go back to see who first mentioned Clinton, but the point made by at least a few of us
is that Clinton is only important at this point as a representative of a broad segment of the
Beltway crowd that is constantly pushing for more military intervention, either directly or by
proxy, and that some of the opposition to Trump doesn't come from antiwar types, but from people
who don't trust him to warmonger in a competent way.
If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition
to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The
one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed
Syria.
If XYZ does not exist, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it exists. I agree that in our present
state of political disorganization among the broad mass, most people do not know much about constitutes
a political issue. And, they don't know what they want politically.
nastywoman @ 175
"Such "thinking" is as "Alien" as blaming the kid who was mauled by a Pit Bull the other day
– "because so little stood in the Pit Bulls way and so little did "compel him".
"What type of person – what type of people can think like that?!"
The kind of person who thinks dogs should be kept on a leash. The type of person who can think
like that is highly intelligent, suave and debonair.
Why are people still talking about Clinton? In general, because Clinton won't shut up. She's as
hungry for a microphone and the spotlight as the conservative in question. Which is ironic considering
that her aversion to the press and the public as a candidate helped cost her the election. Now,
she can't stop talking. Bannon would willingly bankroll the book tour and undoubtedly wants her
to remain in the spotlight through 2018. Indeed, Bannon is banking on making Hillary a key part
of Trump's re-election in 2020, as role she looks all too eager to fill. Chew on that as you gaze
into the future.
Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because
a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in
terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already
and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell
tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is
because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example),
Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news.
To get a sense of what the Democratic future looks like, here's a very recent interview with
Hillary which I think is illustrative of the level of disconnect between supporters (like me)
who felt strongly enough about her candidacy in 2008 to endure accusations of racism from Obama
supporters, yet turned from her to Trump by 2015, and those who still support her for reasons
that make a great deal of sense (to them).
The interview with Hillary about Hillary runs 45 minutes on Australian TV with a transcript.
Take away – Trump figures bigly and in the most unflattering terms, so much for graciousness in
defeat. The Access Hollywood tape is discussed in great detail, as is Comey, and the Russians.
The words Wall St; Goldman Sachs, Libya, and Syria are never mentioned. In Hillary-world Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Bernie Sanders merit a mention each and only in a very specific context. We get
David Duke, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists; pizzas – and pure deflection
when the discussion turns to Bill, Chelsea, gifts; and cash. In short, she hasn't much of a good
word to say about anyone.
Here's a sampling for the still faithful.
" Russians actually paid in rubles for running ads in ah Facebook and on Twitter making all
kinds of accusations against me, working to suppress voters which is a really important part of
the equation " (suppress voters, or decrease turnout? The latter fits better, imho.)
Interviewer: "Is it, is it the case that you missed the fundamentally angry sentiment in the
US last year against globalisation?
HILLARY CLINTON: I didn't miss it "
Interviewer: "Was it in some ways your links to big money politics that made it difficult for
you to be the representative of that anger ?
HILLARY CLINTON: No, not at all! You know, when I was in the primary, Bernie Sanders couldn't
explain his programs. I was the one who was saying here's what we're going to do to the banks
"
One mere mention of Wisconsin: "we know is that the false information was aimed at Wisconsin
and Michigan and parts of Pennsylvania "
The danger is that intelligence agencies cause Facebook to influence elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because
a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have
been to help the Dems. ..."
"... In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic ..."
"... But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized. ..."
"... Chaos Monkeys ..."
"... The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads." ..."
"... Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the spread of misinformation , click-bait
and other problematic content on Facebook." ..."
"... "The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service," he
wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our policies
and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge since I
joined almost 10 years ago." ..."
And why it was so hard to see it coming In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the
timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.
Things we thought we understood -- narratives, data, software, news events -- have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald
Trump's surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.
Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried
to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing
out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic , and elsewhere:
Facebook's enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information
spheres, the increasing scourge of "viral" hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks,
and the Russian information ops agency.
But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It's not that this hypothetical
perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem -- for all political stripes -- is understanding the
set of conditions that led to Trump's victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained
precisely how.
* * *
We've known since at least 2012 that Facebook was a powerful, non-neutral force in electoral politics. In that year, a combined
University of California, San Diego and Facebook research team led by James Fowler published
a study in Nature , which argued that Facebook's "I Voted" button had driven a small but measurable increase in turnout,
primarily among young people.
Rebecca Rosen's 2012 story, "
Did Facebook Give Democrats the Upper Hand? " relied on new research from Fowler, et al., about the presidential election that
year. Again, the conclusion of their work was that Facebook's get-out-the-vote message could have driven a substantial chunk of the
increase in youth voter participation in the 2012 general election. Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook
is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the
general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have been to help the Dems.
The potential for Facebook to have an impact on an election was clear for at least half a decade.
The research showed that a small design change by Facebook could have electoral repercussions, especially with America's electoral-college
format in which a few hotly contested states have a disproportionate impact on the national outcome. And the pro-liberal effect it
implied became enshrined as an axiom of how campaign staffers, reporters, and academics viewed social media.
In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, "
Facebook
Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out ," in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively
depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an "information fiduciary," charged with certain special roles
and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)
In late 2014, The Daily Dot
called attention to an
obscure Facebook-produced case study on how strategists defeated a statewide measure in Florida by relentlessly focusing Facebook
ads on Broward and Dade counties, Democratic strongholds. Working with a tiny budget that would have allowed them to send a single
mailer to just 150,000 households, the digital-advertising firm Chong and Koster was able to obtain remarkable results. "Where the
Facebook ads appeared, we did almost 20 percentage points better than where they didn't," testified a leader of the firm. "Within
that area, the people who saw the ads were 17 percent more likely to vote our way than the people who didn't. Within that group,
the people who voted the way we wanted them to, when asked why, often cited the messages they learned from the Facebook ads."
In April 2016, Rob Meyer published "
How Facebook Could Tilt the 2016 Election " after a company meeting in which some employees apparently put the stopping-Trump
question to Mark Zuckerberg. Based on Fowler's research, Meyer reimagined Zittrain's hypothetical as a direct Facebook intervention
to depress turnout among non-college graduates, who leaned Trump as a whole.
Facebook, of course, said it would never do such a thing. "Voting is a core value of democracy and we believe that supporting
civic participation is an important contribution we can make to the community," a spokesperson said. "We as a company are neutral
-- we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."
From the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment on, or share.
The same was true even of people inside Facebook. "If you'd come to me in 2012, when the last presidential election was raging
and we were cooking up ever more complicated ways to monetize Facebook data, and told me that Russian agents in the Kremlin's employ
would be buying Facebook ads to subvert American democracy, I'd have asked where your tin-foil hat was," wrote Antonio García Martínez,
who managed ad targeting for Facebook back then. "And yet, now we live in that otherworldly political reality."
Not to excuse us, but this was back on the Old Earth, too, when electoral politics was not the thing that every single
person talked about all the time. There were other important dynamics to Facebook's growing power that needed to be covered.
* * *
Facebook's draw is its ability to give you what you want. Like a page, get more of that page's posts; like a story, get more stories
like that; interact with a person, get more of their updates. The way Facebook determines the ranking of the News Feed is the probability
that you'll like, comment on, or share a story. Shares are worth more than comments, which are both worth more than likes, but in
all cases, the more likely you are to interact with a post, the higher up it will show in your News Feed. Two thousand kinds of data
(or "features" in the industry parlance) get smelted in Facebook's machine-learning system to make those predictions.
What's crucial to understand is that, from the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment
on, or share. That's what matters. People call this "engagement." There are other factors, as Slate' s Will Oremus noted in
this rare story about
the News Feed ranking team . But who knows how much weight they actually receive and for how long as the system evolves. For
example, one change that Facebook highlighted to Oremus in early 2016 -- taking into account how long people look at a story, even
if they don't click it -- was subsequently dismissed by
Lars Backstrom, the VP of engineering in charge of
News Feed ranking , as a "noisy" signal that's also "biased in a few ways" making it "hard to use" in a May 2017 technical talk.
Facebook's engineers do not want to introduce noise into the system. Because the News Feed, this machine for generating engagement,
is Facebook's most important technical system. Their success predicting what you'll like is why users spend
an average of more than 50 minutes a day on the site, and why even the former
creator
of the "like" button worries about how well the site captures attention. News Feed works really well.
If every News Feed is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to?
But as far as "
personalized newspapers " go, this one's editorial sensibilities are limited. Most people are far less likely to engage with
viewpoints that they find confusing, annoying, incorrect, or abhorrent. And this is true not just in politics, but the broader culture.
That this could be a problem was apparent to many. Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble, which came out in the summer of 2011,
became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse.
Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends'
-- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. "So no conservative links for me."
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the "personalization" of media might bring. Most germane to this
discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people
are seeing and responding to?
"The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.
As the number of different segments and messages increases, it becomes harder and harder for the campaigns to track who's saying
what to whom," Pariser wrote. "How does a [political] campaign know what its opponent is saying if ads are only targeted to white
Jewish men between 28 and 34 who have expressed a fondness for U2 on Facebook and who donated to Barack Obama's campaign?"
This did, indeed, become an enormous problem. When I was editor in chief of Fusion , we set about trying to track the "digital
campaign" with several dedicated people. What we quickly realized was that there was both too much data -- the noisiness of all the
different posts by the various candidates and their associates -- as well as too little. Targeting made tracking the actual messaging
that the campaigns were paying for impossible to track. On Facebook, the campaigns could show ads only to the people they
targeted. We couldn't actually see the messages that were actually reaching people in battleground areas. From the outside, it was
a technical impossibility to know what ads were running on Facebook,
one that the company
had fought to keep intact .
Across the landscape, it began to dawn on people: Damn, Facebook owns us .
Pariser suggests in his book, "one simple solution to this problem would simply be to require campaigns to immediately disclose
all of their online advertising materials and to whom each ad is targeted." Which
could happen in future campaigns .
Imagine if this had happened in 2016. If there were data sets of all the ads that the campaigns and others had run, we'd know
a lot more about what actually happened last year. The Filter Bubble is obviously prescient work, but there was one thing
that Pariser and most other people did not foresee. And that's that Facebook became completely dominant as a media distributor.
* * *
About two years after Pariser published his book, Facebook took over the news-media ecosystem. They've never publicly admitted
it, but in late 2013, they began to serve ads inviting users to "like" media pages. This caused a massive increase in the amount
of traffic that Facebook sent to media companies. At The Atlantic and other publishers across the media landscape, it was
like a tide was carrying us to new traffic records. Without hiring anyone else, without changing strategy or tactics, without publishing
more, suddenly everything was easier.
While traffic to The Atlantic from Facebook.com increased, at the time, most of the new traffic did not look like it was
coming from Facebook within The Atlantic 's analytics. It showed up as "direct/bookmarked" or some variation, depending on
the software. It looked like what I called "dark social" back in 2012. But as BuzzFeed 's Charlie Warzel
pointed
out at the time , and as I came to believe, it was primarily Facebook traffic in disguise. Between August and October of 2013,
BuzzFeed 's "partner network" of hundreds of websites saw a jump in traffic from Facebook of 69 percent.
At The Atlantic, we ran a series of experiments that showed, pretty definitively from our perspective, that most of the
stuff that looked like "dark social" was, in fact, traffic coming from within Facebook's mobile app. Across the landscape, it began
to dawn on people who thought about these kinds of things: Damn, Facebook owns us . They had taken over media distribution.
Why? This is a best guess,
proffered by Robinson Meyer as it was happening : Facebook wanted to crush Twitter, which had drawn a disproportionate share
of media and media-figure attention. Just as Instagram borrowed Snapchat's "Stories" to help crush the site's growth, Facebook decided
it needed to own "news" to take the wind out of the newly IPO'd Twitter.
The first sign that this new system had some kinks came with "
Upworthy -style " headlines. (And you'll never guess what happened next!) Things didn't just go kind of viral, they went
ViralNova , a site which, like Upworthy
itself , Facebook eventually smacked down
. Many of the new sites had, like Upworthy , which was cofounded by Pariser, a progressive bent.
Less noticed was that a right-wing media was developing in opposition to and alongside these left-leaning sites. "By 2014, the
outlines of the Facebook-native hard-right voice and grievance spectrum were there," The New York Times ' media and tech writer
John Herrman told me, "and I tricked myself into thinking they were a reaction/counterpart to the wave of soft progressive/inspirational
content that had just crested. It ended up a Reaction in a much bigger and destabilizing sense."
The other sign of algorithmic trouble was the wild swings that Facebook Video underwent. In the early days, just about any old
video was likely to generate many, many, many views. The numbers were insane in the early days. Just as an example,
a Fortune article noted that BuzzFeed
's video views "grew 80-fold in a year, reaching more than 500 million in April." Suddenly, all kinds of video -- good, bad,
and ugly -- were doing 1-2-3 million views.
As with news, Facebook's video push was a direct
assault on a competitor, YouTube . Videos changed the dynamics of the News Feed for individuals, for media companies, and
for anyone trying to understand what the hell was going on.
Individuals were suddenly inundated with video. Media companies, despite no business model, were forced to crank out video somehow
or risk their pages/brands losing relevance as video posts crowded others out.
And on top of all that, scholars and industry observers were used to looking at what was happening in articles to understand
how information was flowing. Now, by far the most viewed media objects on Facebook, and therefore on the internet, were videos without
transcripts or centralized repositories. In the early days, many successful videos were just "freebooted" (i.e., stolen) videos from
other places or reposts. All of which served to confuse and obfuscate the transport mechanisms for information and ideas on Facebook.
Through this messy, chaotic, dynamic situation, a new media rose up through the Facebook burst to occupy the big filter bubbles.
On the right, Breitbart is the center of a new conservative network. A
study of 1.25 million election news
articles found "a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system,
using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world."
Breitbart , of course, also lent Steve Bannon, its chief, to the Trump campaign, creating another feedback loop between
the candidate and a rabid partisan press. Through 2015, Breitbart went from a medium-sized site with a small Facebook page
of 100,000 likes into a
powerful force
shaping the election with almost 1.5 million likes. In the key metric for Facebook's News Feed, its posts got 886,000 interactions
from Facebook users in January. By July, Breitbart had surpassed The New York Times ' main account in interactions.
By December, it was doing 10 million interactions per month, about 50 percent of Fox News, which had 11.5 million likes on its main
page. Breitbart 's audience was hyper-engaged.
There is no precise equivalent to the Breitbart phenomenon on the left. Rather the big news organizations are classified
as center-left, basically, with fringier left-wing sites showing far smaller followings than Breitbart on the right.
And this new, hyperpartisan media created the perfect conditions for another dynamic that influenced the 2016 election, the rise
of fake news.
In a December 2015 article for BuzzFeed , Joseph Bernstein argued that "
the dark forces of the internet became a counterculture ." He called it "Chanterculture" after the trolls who gathered at the
meme-creating, often-racist 4chan message board. Others ended up calling it the "alt-right." This culture combined a bunch of people
who loved to perpetuate hoaxes with angry Gamergaters with "free-speech" advocates like Milo Yiannopoulos with honest-to-God neo-Nazis
and white supremacists. And these people loved Donald Trump.
"This year Chanterculture found its true hero, who makes it plain that what we're seeing is a genuine movement: the current master
of American resentment, Donald Trump," Bernstein wrote. "Everywhere you look on 'politically incorrect' subforums and random chans,
he looms."
When you combine hyper-partisan media with a group of people who love to clown "normies," you end up with things like
Pizzagate , a patently ridiculous and widely
debunked conspiracy theory that held there was a child-pedophilia ring linked to Hillary Clinton somehow. It was just the most bizarre
thing in the entire world. And many of the figures in Bernstein's story were all over it, including several who the current president
has consorted with on social media.
But Pizzagate was but the most Pynchonian of all the crazy misinformation and hoaxes that spread in the run-up to the election.
BuzzFeed , deeply attuned to the flows of the social web, was all over the story through reporter Craig Silverman. His
best-known analysis happened after the election, when he showed that "in the final three months of the U.S. presidential campaign,
the top-performing fake election-news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets
such as The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Huffington Post , NBC News, and others."
But he also tracked fake news
before the election , as did other outlets such as The Washington Post, including showing that Facebook's "Trending"
algorithm regularly promoted fake news. By September of 2016,
even the Pope himself was talking about fake news, by which we mean actual hoaxes or lies perpetuated by a variety of actors.
The fake news generated a ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
What made the election cycle different was that all of these changes to the information ecosystem had made it possible to develop
weird businesses around fake news. Some random website posting aggregated news about the election could not drive a lot of traffic.
But some random website announcing that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump definitely could . The fake news generated a
ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
A few days before the election Silverman and fellow BuzzFeed contributor Lawrence Alexander traced 100 pro–Donald Trump
sites to
a town of 45,000 in Macedonia . Some teens there realized they could make money off the election, and just like that, became
a node in the information network that helped Trump beat Clinton.
Whatever weird thing you imagine might happen, something weirder probably did happen. Reporters tried to keep up, but it was too
strange. As Max Read put it in New York Magazine , Facebook is "like a four-dimensional object, we catch slices of it when
it passes through the three-dimensional world we recognize." No one can quite wrap their heads around what this thing has become,
or all the things this thing has become.
"Not even President-Pope-Viceroy Zuckerberg himself seemed prepared for the role Facebook has played in global politics this past
year," Read wrote.
And we haven't even gotten to the Russians.
* * *
Russia's disinformation campaigns are well known. During his reporting for
a story in The New York Times Magazine
, Adrian Chen sat across the street from the headquarters of the Internet Research Agency, watching workaday Russian agents/internet
trolls head inside. He heard how the place had "industrialized the art of trolling" from a former employee. "Management was obsessed
with statistics -- page views, number of posts, a blog's place on LiveJournal's traffic charts -- and team leaders compelled hard
work through a system of bonuses and fines," he wrote. Of course they wanted to maximize engagement, too!
There were reports that Russian trolls
were commenting on American news sites . There were many, many reports of Russia's propaganda offensive in Ukraine.
Ukrainian journalists run a website dedicated to cataloging these disinformation attempts called StopFake . It has hundreds of posts reaching back into 2014.
The influence campaign just happened on Facebook without anyone noticing.
A Guardian reporter who looked into
Russian
military doctrine around information war found a handbook that described how it might work. "The deployment of information weapons,
[the book] suggests, 'acts like an invisible radiation' upon its targets: 'The population doesn't even feel it is being acted upon.
So the state doesn't switch on its self-defense mechanisms,'" wrote Peter Pomerantsev.
As more details about the Russian disinformation campaign come to the surface through Facebook's continued digging, it's fair
to say that it's not just the state that did not switch on its self-defense mechanisms. The influence campaign just happened on Facebook
without anyone noticing.
As many people have noted, the 3,000 ads that have been linked to Russia are a drop in the bucket, even if they did reach millions
of people. The real game is simply that Russian operatives created pages that reached people "organically," as the saying goes. Jonathan
Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University,
pulled data on the six publicly known Russia-linked Facebook pages . He found that their posts had been shared 340 million
times . And those were six of 470 pages that Facebook has linked to Russian operatives. You're probably talking billions of shares,
with who knows how many views, and with what kind of specific targeting.
The Russians are good at engagement! Yet, before the U.S. election, even after Hillary Clinton and intelligence agencies
fingered Russian intelligence meddling in the election, even after news reports
suggested that a disinformation campaign was afoot , nothing about the actual operations on Facebook came out.
In the aftermath of these discoveries, three Facebook security researchers, Jen Weedon, William Nuland, and Alex Stamos, released
a white paper called Information
Operations and Facebook . "We have had to expand our security focus from traditional abusive behavior, such as account hacking,
malware, spam, and financial scams, to include more subtle and insidious forms of misuse, including attempts to manipulate civic
discourse and deceive people," they wrote.
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people. And we figure out how to use it to push conservative values."
One key theme of the paper is that they were used to dealing with economic actors, who responded to costs and incentives. When
it comes to Russian operatives paid to Facebook, those constraints no longer hold. "The area of information operations does provide
a unique challenge," they wrote, "in that those sponsoring such operations are often not constrained by per-unit economic realities
in the same way as spammers and click fraudsters, which increases the complexity of deterrence." They were not expecting that.
Add everything up. The chaos of a billion-person platform that competitively dominated media distribution. The known electoral
efficacy of Facebook. The wild fake news and misinformation rampaging across the internet generally and Facebook specifically. The
Russian info operations. All of these things were known.
And yet no one could quite put it all together: The dominant social network had altered the information and persuasion environment
of the election beyond recognition while taking
a very big chunk
of the estimated $1.4 billion worth of digital advertising purchased during the election. There were hundreds of millions of
dollars of dark ads doing their work. Fake news all over the place. Macedonian teens campaigning for Trump. Ragingly partisan media
infospheres serving up only the news you wanted to hear. Who could believe anything? What room was there for policy positions when
all this stuff was eating up News Feed space? Who the hell knew what was going on?
Hillary Clinton is running arguably the most digital presidential campaign in U.S. history. Donald Trump is running one of
the most analog campaigns in recent memory. The Clinton team is bent on finding more effective ways to identify supporters and
ensure they cast ballots; Trump is, famously and unapologetically, sticking to a 1980s-era focus on courting attention and voters
via television.
Just a week earlier, Trump's campaign had hired Cambridge Analytica. Soon, they'd ramped up to $70 million a month in Facebook
advertising spending. And the next thing you knew, Brad Parscale, Trump's digital director, is
doing the postmortem rounds talking up his win .
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people on the west and east coasts," Parscale said. "And we figure out
how to use it to push conservative values. I don't think they thought that would ever happen."
And that was part of the media's problem, too.
* * *
Before Trump's election, the impact of internet technology generally and Facebook specifically was seen as favoring Democrats.
Even a
TechCrunch critique of Rosen's 2012 article about Facebook's electoral power argued, "the
internet inherently advantages
liberals because, on average, their greater psychological embrace of disruption leads to more innovation (after all, nearly every
major digital breakthrough, from online fundraising to the use of big data, was pioneered by Democrats)."
In June 2015, The New York Times ran an article about
Republicans trying to ramp up their digital campaigns that began like this: "The criticism after the 2012 presidential election
was swift and harsh: Democrats were light-years ahead of Republicans when it came to digital strategy and tactics, and Republicans
had serious work to do on the technology front if they ever hoped to win back the White House."
"Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power."
It cited Sasha Issenberg, the most astute reporter on political technology. "The Republicans have a particular challenge," Issenberg
said, "which is, in these areas they don't have many people with either the hard skills or the experience to go out and take on this
type of work."
University of North Carolina journalism professor Daniel Kreiss wrote a whole (good) book, Prototype Politics , showing that Democrats had
an incredible personnel advantage. " Drawing on an innovative data set of the professional careers of 629 staffers working
in technology on presidential campaigns from 2004 to 2012 and data from interviews with more than 60 party and campaign staffers,"
Kriess wrote, "the book details how and explains why the Democrats have invested more in technology, attracted staffers with specialized
expertise to work in electoral politics, and founded an array of firms and organizations to diffuse technological innovations down
ballot and across election cycles."
Which is to say: It's not that no journalists, internet-focused lawyers, or technologists saw Facebook's looming electoral presence
-- it was undeniable -- but all the evidence pointed to the structural change benefitting Democrats. And let's just state the obvious:
Most reporters and professors are probably about as liberal as your standard Silicon Valley technologist, so this conclusion fit
into the comfort zone of those in the field.
By late October, the role that Facebook might be playing in the Trump campaign -- and more broadly -- was emerging. Joshua Green
and Issenberg
reported
a long feature on the data operation then in motion . The Trump campaign was working to suppress "idealistic white liberals,
young women, and African Americans," and they'd be doing it with targeted, "dark" Facebook ads. These ads are only visible to the
buyer, the ad recipients, and Facebook. No one who hasn't been targeted by then can see them. How was anyone supposed to know what
was going on, when the key campaign terrain was literally invisible to outside observers?
Steve Bannon was confident in the operation. "I wouldn't have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn't known they were building
this massive Facebook and data engine," Bannon told them. "Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We
know its power."
The very roots of the electoral system had been destabilized.
Issenberg and Green called it "an odd gambit" which had "no scientific basis." Then again, Trump's whole campaign had seemed like
an odd gambit with no scientific basis. The conventional wisdom was that Trump was going to lose and lose badly. In the days before
the election, The Huffington Post 's data team had Clinton's election probability at 98.3 percent. A member of the team, Ryan
Grim, went after Nate Silver for his more conservative probability of 64.7 percent, accusing him of skewing his data for "punditry"
reasons. Grim ended his post on the topic, "If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She's got this."
Narrator: She did not have this.
But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized.
In the middle of the summer of the election, the former Facebook ad-targeting product manager, Antonio García Martínez, released
an autobiography called Chaos Monkeys . He called
his colleagues "chaos monkeys," messing with industry after industry in their company-creating fervor. "The question for society,"
he wrote, "is whether it can survive these entrepreneurial chaos monkeys intact, and at what human cost." This is the real epitaph
of the election.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads."
The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that
was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook. And so, during the most significant shift in the technology of politics since the television,
the first draft of history is filled with undecipherable whorls and empty pages. Meanwhile, the 2018 midterms loom.
Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the
spread of misinformation
, click-bait
and other
problematic
content on Facebook."
"The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service,"
he wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our
policies and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge
since I joined almost 10 years ago."
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
"... "You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie. ..."
"... The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth. ..."
"... I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict. ..."
"You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men".
Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people
something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie.
The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why
the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because
the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle
its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth.
Thus the purpose of propaganda in the US is to make their population more manageable. I
think that there is also a cultural difference between US and Russia in how they see the
purpose of propaganda.
The Americans see propaganda as useful tool, which when applied skillfully on the domestic
population removes the need to oppress them – which they would have to do to their
population if they tell them the truth and don't like the reaction of the population after
they've been told the truth.
This is called "democracy" – avoid telling them the truth and remove the need to
oppress them, which you will have to do if you tell your people a truth that they can't
"handle".
The Russians have different approach – which is deeply rooted in their history and
culture. The Russian government is less uncomfortable with their population knowing the
truth, because if the Russian people don't like the truth, and react to that, the Russian
government is more inclined to resort to some kind of oppression on their population –
if they think it's in the interest of the Russian state.
Me personally – I like the Russian approach better, I hate lies even if they are
told in the name of "democracy". It's better to tell the truth and face the music than be
deceitful.
Clearly important truths, for anyone wanting to understand both the recent past and the
present that developed out of it:
As for the Soviet propaganda in the West, it did have a measurable effect (just look at
the influence of various Communist Parties in Europe during the Cold War), but never enough
to beat the base appeal to hedonism and consumerism promoted by the best and most effective
branch of the western propaganda apparatus: Hollywood.
and:
Third, outrageous, over the top and disgusting as some of the clown shown on Russian TV
are, they do not misrepresent the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. Yes, sure, true
Russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned
(especially in southern Europe and the US), but practically the regimes in power in the
West controlled by Russophobes or by their puppets. As for the western Ziomedia, it is
wall-to-wall russophobic to such a degree that I would call it unambiguously racist.
For one thing, the European elites are very very slowly, by tiny steps, waking up to the
reality that their abject and total subservience to the US has put them in an extremely
uncomfortable situation.
This is one reason why, as I have noted before, the current drive by many of the
usual suspects and
the rest of the war lobbies in the US to overturn the Iran deal is not necessarily something
to be feared. Indeed for those recognising the problems of US interventionism as among the
most urgent facing the world, it's probably a win-win situation. Fail, and the
US/Israeli/Saudi warmongers have suffered a defeat. Succeed, and they have probably set
themselves up for an even more costly defeat.
The Iran deal is widely popular in Europe, even amongst business and other elites, as
having halted the necessity for complying with and paying lip-service to the transparently
irrational and/or dishonest US nonsense about Iran, and the economically costly and
intellectually insupportable sanctions used by the US to wage economic war on that country in
the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
If the deal is breached by the US regime, the said regime will massively lose credibility
worldwide. There will then be a struggle wherein the US tries to coerce its European and
British client states to return to waging economic war against Iran. That risks an open
refusal, which will seriously damage US control and quite possibly bring it to an end. Russia
and China have already started to develop economic and financial structures beyond the reach
of Washington. The door will be open for European businesses and governments to walk through
it, to the new world beyond.
If it doesn't itself trigger such final breaks, the process of imposing Washington's will
will create huge resentment and set the scene for such breaks in the near future.
The average US American's experience with Russians in the past forty years has come from
Rambo films and Red Dawn (the first one). Long gone are the days when films like The Russians
are Coming exposed Americans to Russians as human beings rather than as killing machines of
an evil state. When Putin or Lavrov appear on American TV, which is not very often, it is
only in very tightly scripted sound bites that fit the narrative blathering from the talking
head telling the viewer what to think about the Russians and their "misdeeds." Perhaps the
only friend the Russians have in American media these days is Rush Limbaugh mull that over.
You can get RT on a few cable providers in the US. In my hometown, you have to pay for the
"Russian Package" to get it, though I found RT America once on basic cable in Dallas. I doubt
many Americans even know RT exists, much less seek it out. I get the European version via
U.K. FTA satellite, and wonder how long it will be before it is knocked off the air by
Ofcom.
If I want the truth about the US and U.K., I generally can count on getting it, albeit a
bit spun, from RT. If I want the truth about Russia, I generally have to ask one of my
Russian friends, though RT, to its credit, does occasionally take a pole at the best. If I
want to hear what Putin and Lavrov are actually saying, I rarely get that in any Western
Media, but RT will let them go on without significant editorial.
What I find amusing is that during the Cold War, American media elites were falling all
over one another to kiss Soviet A ** , but even though many of these same elites accuse Putin
of being a closeted commie, they portray him as evil personified; I guess he isn't Communist
enough for them.
Yes, sure, true russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people
are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US )
I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our
election" hysteria in the US?
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem
with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies
etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do
support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one
need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran
deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions
– "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the
kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the
whole.
I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our
election" hysteria in the US?
I think Saker is probably not including the general mass of ignorant propaganda victims as
"true Russophobes".
US popular opinion on Russia seems pretty mixed, albeit there are certainly plenty of
gormless victims of the wall to wall Russophobic propaganda (that's – in its recent
guise – mostly partisan anti-Trump in motivation, in truth) in the US. Here's a recent
poll (July);
But on the broader issue of relations with Russia, Americans don't appear to be in a
bellicose mood. Asked whether it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia
or treat Russia as a threat, 59 percent said they want to build relationships, compared to
31 percent who want to treat Russia as a threat.
Registered Democrats were more interested in treating Russia as a threat than
Republicans, but 46 percent of them preferred building relationships, 2 percent more than
those who favored taking a more aggressive stance. Republicans were far more interested in
building relationships, with 67 percent in support.
The poll also asked Americans whether Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia
was good or bad for the U.S. While a five percent plurality favored the goal, there was
again a sharp partisan divide. 70 percent of Democrats said Trump's goal of improving
relations with Russia was bad for the U.S., and 75 percent of Republicans consider it
good.
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the
problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential
lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans
do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters
(one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the
Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed
interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I
don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that
representative on the whole.
Yes, I agree with this, for sure.
It's true that ordinary Americans are deluged in interventionist and militarist propaganda
from the cradle to the grave, and that is perhaps some explanation if not excuse, but the
fact does remain that Americans re-elected Clinton, Bush II and Obama (though admittedly they
were hardly provided with decent alternatives, but that again shows how they are prepared to
vote for warmongers in primaries), and elect and re-elect warmongering interventionist scum
like John McCain to Congress time after time after time.
There is clearly a problem in American culture and their political structure that makes
them particularly open to manipulation in this area (which is not to say the same isn't true
of other countries, mind you).
> There is no Russian equivalent of the Pokemon story
Half true.
When Pokemon Go was announced, it was widely speculated that this technology may be used
to both hoard unexpecting game addicts into some places (like, moving nazi and antifa crowds
together, where their firght would be imminent; or nazi and aggressive ethnic minority; or
competing sport teams fans, etc) or background surveillance and spying (by placing pokemons
in the places, game operator wants to see in photo).
This was quite a hot topic, and i think those potential dangers are real. Just looking how
pseudo-private companies like Facebook engage in swept political censorship makes one ask
"how Pokemon company is different?".
There indeed was no allegation that US Gov't actually utilizes this already, but there
definitely was a lot of debate about laying frameworks and public habits to start doing
it.
Not only Russia but many other states and companies limited Pokemon Go at their premises.
Now, what we see is CNN merely combining the real fears about Po-Go embedded capabilities
(which, i repeat, were shared by many Russians) with the typical "Putin is under your bed
because all the patriots say so" fundamentalists claim.
You have also account for Russia being here an underdog. Russia's information outlets are much weaker than USA's and globalists' ones.
Russia has only RT and Sputnik against CNN/Fox/WaPo/MSNBC/PB/BBC/DW/AFP and what not
Russia just can not engage in symmetric warfare and win by overwhelming force, Russia only
has overwhelming weakness here.
So, Russia has to take truth into allies, not because it likes it that much more, but
because it does not have a chance to fight symmetrically, lies with lies and fires with
fires.
which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you
I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as
bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in
Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of
jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its
underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally
irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation,
a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And
then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular
culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some
foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely
irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and
suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of
the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there
is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict.
Another great example of this is the entire Inosmi phenomenon, which translates Western
MSM texts into Russian. As one my acquaintances pointed out, it was a
"machine that turned naive, simple-minded, West-loving normies into hardcore
ultranationalists."
Truth is the best weapon. By trying to close Soviet union to western news Soviet leadership
made things worse. Soviet people than refused to believe even truth about the West believing
everything transmitted by those voices. And that despite USSR being in most areas in far
better shape than modern Russia. Current Russian propaganda and international policy is head
and shoulders above what was passing for those back then managing to achieve excellent
results for little expense. Way to go.
Much of Europe is presently jailing its citizenry over reactionary tweets and facebook posts.
I wouldn't think it accurate to describe them as unwilling to use oppression. In point of
fact, I think they're far more willing to directly undermine political reactionaries than the
Americans. The American Establishment seems content to stick with propaganda, bureaucratic
scheming, and judicial subterfuge.
I have access to almost all of the sources that you mentioned and a few more. All have
their faults but some are so bad that I cannot watch them. RT is definitely one of the
best.
Only today I watched RT showing Hillary Clinton being interviewed with RT simultaneously
showing screenshots from other media exposing and refuting Clinton's blatant lies. The same
technique is used with others such as government (US and EU) spokespersons and officials. It
is very effective, in my opinion.
Average Finnish experience about Russia is sadly still from era of Leonid Breznev, cheap
vodka and real socialist bar girls of late 1970′s and 1980′s. However hundreds of
thousands of people who have visited in Sankt Petersburg and Vyborg during the last 10 years
have noticed huge gap between western propaganda and real progress and development in real
life Russia.
It's something of a top-down situation. After all, America is where the art of PR was
refined and is a large industry, pushing everything from consumer goodies to whatever
cultural/political ideas are being sponsored at the moment. American is a big island and most
in it grow up in something of a bubble. They are tone-deaf in understanding other countries.
Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying
out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving
their opinions on anything foreign. Another thing to keep in mind is that half of the
population is mentally average or below average and so what they think about anything beyond
their range of experience is pretty much worthless. Of the various commenters giving their
opinion on different websites about the Iran nuclear deal how many have actually read it?
Mostly they know zero about it. That's pretty much it, Americans know very little so when
dealing with them one has to act as one does with a simple-minded neighbor and humor them:
yes, you're the fairest one of them all!
"Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying
out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving
their opinions on anything foreign."
In fairness to the American proles, their country is equivalent in approximate size the
European continent. Few proles know anything of politics outside their continental bubble on
either side of the Atlantic. Jingoism on either continent is equivalent and opposite from my
experience as a third party to both. Americans prefer their jingoism to be patriotic and
feign ignorance about Europe as unimportant. Europeans prefer their jingoism to be
passive-aggressive and feign understanding about American politics that they do not have.
Israelis tend to split the difference by taking a great deal of interest in both and claiming
their largely uninformed opinions are unimportant.
To conclude, from the analysis of 1 program, that Russia's whole political communication
strategy is super professional and way more sophisticated than "the West's" seems a clear
overstretch. The conclusion may be true, but it does not follow from the evidence presented.
In fact, the program's general recipe (use of opponent's egregious examples, a bit of
humor, giving air time to 'extreme' spokespersons and basic knowledge of audience nature) is
what Sailer does.
Putin does have going for him, however, the fact that he is governing with Russia's best
interests at heart. Or can credibly hold that position. For propaganda purposes, half the
battle (legitimacy and support of the governed) is won right there.
Another good chunk can be
won by claiming the defensive: " we are attacked by anti-Russian forces". The use of a common
threat (real or perceived) to rally the people is well known in politics, whether campaigning
or governing. What does not strike me as Putinesque is to underestimate the adversary, as the
author does.
Russia Today was a worthy channel that put the Russian point of view and posted positive
stories about Russia. Decades of positive stories are what Russia needs. But it is boring
work to do.
RT has become a ridiculous parody that barely comments on Russia (perhaps another channel
is needed). It is designed to attract conspiracy theorists and obsessives. It uses editing
tricks at two levels. Some obvious heady handed edit to distract analytical attention from a
deeper level. That's very good production to be sure.
RT is anti US. THERE IS NO STATION OUT THERE PUTTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF RUSSIA. THIS IS A
HUGE LONG TERM ERROR.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd,
almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine
Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.
With the U.S. government offering tens of
millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not
surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have
"basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."
I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet
has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly
personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think
of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook
(compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of
Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing
through the Internet.
Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's
population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of
course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.
After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely
to get a piece of
the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily
Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most
responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from
many other sources.
If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your
"research"
cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some
links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few
of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and
shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion
monthly users.)
Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms
on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a
sewer."
But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts
purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27
billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having
little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect
Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of
thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential
campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions,
debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual
electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in
politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a
carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver
meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."
Puppies and Pokemon
And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these
"Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to
photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister
motive behind the "puppies" page.
Similarly, CNN went wild over its own
"discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who
found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would
name the Pokémon after the victims.
"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have
been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had
happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:
"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the
contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or,
indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the
prizes."
So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people"
about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American
democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald
Trump.
A New York Times article
on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more
perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.
It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are
home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to
resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.
"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week,
they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes,
fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."
There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money
for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news
articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish
Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.
The Truth About Fake News
Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last
November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the
Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran
a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times
tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student
using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or
not.
The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push
stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing
anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found
no Russian connection.
The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on
mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus
advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly
profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim
here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.
But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure
readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a
story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.
This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story
plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to
Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be
true.
But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of
alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even
flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.
There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps
turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential
or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over
Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor
changes in the Republican platform).
Saying 'False' Is 'True'
And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to
defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in
referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our
election."
That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence
agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments
of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this
topic.
Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence
community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as
"hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment"
blaming the Russians while acknowledging
a lack of actual evidence .
In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence
that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In
"stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments
without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the
groupthink.
So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016
and later in 2017 when she repeated
it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it
would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the
fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated
Press ran corrections.
In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence –
testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the
17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false
statement from being described for what it was: false.
Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an
arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of
mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and
what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed
"false."
So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes
"true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google
ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn
you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.
TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am
Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author,
conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the
Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral
degeneracy. Wadya think?
Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!
Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm
I second the motion!
Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and
only pure-grain alcohol?"
richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am
And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian
banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.
This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm
The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they
know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K
on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about
0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average
nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many
individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.
The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling
about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they
are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.
The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one
can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they
believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize
oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no
advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.
JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they
are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is
obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is
completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack
of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.
As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation
to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not.
Historians will judge them harshly.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
JWalters –
Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are
spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now
are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk
show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If
these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form
of madness.
anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm
"Historians will judge them harshly."
The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and
Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.
Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society
they belong to.
Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism,
[email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the
many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic
Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and
college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the
US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller)
and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.
Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled
Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had
no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took
her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up.
How could you have missed it?
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm
He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces"
against Clinton, versus her accusations.
I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has
the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we
hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made
to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by
people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay
alert.
A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging
about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook
to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which
condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda
organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in
the category of "Better safe."
So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our
beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people
who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching
in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption
by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy,
and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great
danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat."
Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary,
consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and
conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.
Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the
Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.
From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am
Abe –
Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann
Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely
because of the draft.
Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K.
public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany
in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in
Jail for his activities to oppose the war.
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to
war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome"
situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire
(enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am
Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and
it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his
contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in
World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.
(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!
T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am
the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war
criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your
escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide
your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and
Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted
state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany
our censored news. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm
Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press.
Read this .
"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a
narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public
is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay
the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is
pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two
weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an
idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech
across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of
traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these
platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or
less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia
message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a
collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad
Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his
narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially
the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and
free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."
Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..
When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal
deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White
House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side
stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is
the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for
what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party
platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after
you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan
politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves
our attention, and what we do all should do about it.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Joe Tedesky –
Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me
that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices
and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in
this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other
things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries
like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four
billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries
probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it
much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.
And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials
sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues
are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we
do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property
and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about
Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive
properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia,
U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.
And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and
other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and
his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other
corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption
is the norm.
Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up
in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the
high interest loans.
This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking
about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly
breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young
bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as
much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for
your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade
right here at home.
I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world
they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar
would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the
occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy,
nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being
corrupt.
I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into
Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned
around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling
off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles
altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?
Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have
many a good conversation. Joe
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am
Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian
businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other
Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery
case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is
Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton
Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the
trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few
of them too.
Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has
been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may
be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now,
probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important
comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think
of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible
thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.
Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to
NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going
for the Media Knockout'.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am
Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews
into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to
Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one
right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically
said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in
construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave
Germany and come to Palestine?"
I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am
Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of
Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its
result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist
trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.
I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist.
It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can
provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.
Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay.
Joe
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am
Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am
Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts
getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm
Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against
Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.
Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation.
Joe
dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda
on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(
Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am
I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of
keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect
us from the terrists they created.
Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am
Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.
David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W.
Bush's administration".
The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.
But I'll let it slide.
Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm
betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of
China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with
the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du
jour.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding
the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices.
Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm
zio-alert
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm
The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:
When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H.
Fabian" pops up to insist:
And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US
government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big
oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.
If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for
their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is
bigger than the one you would like to paint.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am
WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe".
Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual
citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone?
Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so
why do we? I will wait for your reply.
WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Curious.
I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and
Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot
of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)
As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there
are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the
interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different
from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of?
We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of
each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the
big picture?
No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of
the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I
also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the
sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming
some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to
label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow
leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and
Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am
WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a
few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several,
world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under
Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to
break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire.
Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire,
threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in
City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and
obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am
No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to
zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire
problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to
their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war
anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in
other problems.
WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am
Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding
Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British
aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am
The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.
Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.
The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag
"anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that
gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.
Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary
purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli
military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities
The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the
Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south
Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further
Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush
administration for its backing of Israel.
A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started
circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and
who are dual American-Israeli citizens."
With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with
headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration."
Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration,
27 House members and 13 senators.
The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the
misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or
multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and
is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire,
engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is
that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to
which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been
revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.
The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic
Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to
grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and
the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a
religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews
or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not
entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of
Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).
Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their
descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants
Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli
citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in
Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of
Return if the applicant so desires.
A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval
to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but
not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious
disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving
in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship
unless they explicitly request not to.
In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.
Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray
Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian
territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the
manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really
works".
"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example
that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of
time."
The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big
thing".
"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They
are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.
Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.
Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and
"always for the benefit of Israel".
Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert
country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am
Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very
clearly.
I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the
largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at
that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist
Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on
the World events.
Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is
a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this
country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes
wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special
chosen people?
WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would
like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of
proportion.
When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well
versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!
With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I,
on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to
get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In
reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be
right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims
(whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong
either.
Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to
cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who
(he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as
being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the
most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of
clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right
and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder
can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world
filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for
power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested
special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes
far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem
will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that
lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled
with so much wrong.
Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over –
what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church
Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper
perspective" on Israel.
For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30,
2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal
50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967
War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"
A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement
movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.
Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli
propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned
Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.
Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist
settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".
The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of
settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides
humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set
out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949
Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent
borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice
Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The
Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international
border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the
Israel–Lebanon border.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies
refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring
countries.
According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities
inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is
forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank
almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.
Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States
Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory is overblown.
The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the
built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.
This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately
disingenuous.
The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land
Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements
create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the
West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And
almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has
given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area"
of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing
it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build
infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the
entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various
barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to
be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly
impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.
The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to
describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that
the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether
international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.
Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of
effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the
military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see:
HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).
The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war.
Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian
territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.
Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is
that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.
Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in
the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is
occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding
3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and
for the Israeli economy."
Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change
the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not
Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the
land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Real world solutions:
An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.
What can be done now?
United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of
Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor
the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple
ethnic cleansing operations.
In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.
Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing
views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with
weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am
Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are
Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at
work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public
criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates
of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the
Senate. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2
wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm
though.Boy.
Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers,
so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft
drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox
News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are
already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by
140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel
they are insulated from critical analysis.
dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
jon stewart?WTF?
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV,
having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of
humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points
of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political
content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.
fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm
EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc
(DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign
countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy,
studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more
suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American
governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is
or was a difference between the candidates..
Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of
Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned
about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists,
white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges,
vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the
list.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe
Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am
I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.
I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.
Only my mind is left. For some more years.
(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."
Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?
Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am
Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the
garbage they are promoting.
Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I
also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.
We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player
who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven
year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That
young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great
number 21 Roberto Clemente.
Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care
Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to
watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe
Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1
favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father
took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for
a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have
loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.
On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com
story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open
case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this
matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so
I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and
such on the old TV.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think
fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over
into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right
field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth
or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side,
where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third.
The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a
pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television
cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our
school lunch money.
About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another
Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for
Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe
mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to
the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein
affair.
The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political
establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of
the population believes what it sees in the MSM.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am
mark-
I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in
the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well
in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20
percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false
flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to
Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and
viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are
turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all
costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day
that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and
interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to
that.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical
instrument "viola."
Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you
have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American.
Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be
one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was
exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there
isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a
problem, Houston.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm
If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k
spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who
gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall
the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way
too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard
placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I
must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any
qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the
Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would
risk starting WWIII doing it.
Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.
No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing
just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is
perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and
concerned about immorality than Americans.
This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one
am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their
feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by
yourself!
Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37 https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/
It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's
more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new
evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the
whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense.
The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon
Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am
Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from
mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!
Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am
Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of
Politifact is invigorating.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am
Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian
bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been
the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton
was Secretary of State.
Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:
Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her
supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am
Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!
Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more
quality items.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am
Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that.
However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to
seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police
– I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant
involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue
the investigation.
Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during
1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about
the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery
and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am
Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become
taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from
the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more,
than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's
death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of
those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer
the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.
The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I
think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a
way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world
is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's
power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.
Okay Dave. Joe
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am
Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these
cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the
dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true
picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no
independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely
do.
It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real
issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected
officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues,
had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these
days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless
Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any
thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country
or the World.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of
concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's
good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here.
Joe
Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any
investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am
I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file.
Joe
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am
Hours ago:
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant
Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's
investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company
that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa
has learned.
In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer
representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary
informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he
provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players
from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]
FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One,
which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required
approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change
of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the
national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was
chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."
This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch
or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?
Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am
Very well written article
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am
The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for
his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie
Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't
be bothered reading it anymore.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am
Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute
corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.
He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey,
Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are
the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with
Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter,
while virtually ignoring the former.
Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion
in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than
10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News
of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have
probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles
Times.
However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the
Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los
Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.
I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our
house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well
into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don
Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just
about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the
Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies
and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana
Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am
Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories
whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled
Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If
this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to
take our minds off of it.
The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the
rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and
call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.
Cheers, Dave.
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am
"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It
never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York
Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by
omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan
demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union
Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the
entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like
9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on
youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the
website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national
history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in
hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.
In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda
methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't
happening.'
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am
Lee Francis –
yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel
lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very
passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he
sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.
It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin
the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox,
are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they
seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is
beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked,
but with corruption rampant, who knows?
JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of
those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that
they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a
straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously
phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat
voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are
still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach
the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Good one!
Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There
are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video
editor :)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm
The Rulers fear the internet.
Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The
Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed
I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making
fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical
year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US
presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with
negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the
Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm
I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to
the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own
choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it,
like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing
philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere
proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with
this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its
extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an
independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled
to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at
your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who
dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the
screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms
of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is
Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it
stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May
(assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start
making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"
And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to
its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which
reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the
service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is
certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny.
The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have
already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their
people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy
hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly
privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand
otherwise, vociferously and en masse.
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the
actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played
his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.
Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with
populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and
everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the
power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular
population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each
category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the
pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and
peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.
Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war
crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm
For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will
reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate
entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the
lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to
find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military
into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the
behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle
East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign
lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is
why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the
'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax
payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own
country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys'
article.
GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg
times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.
Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am
I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to
affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to
look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.
Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?
But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake
media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be
the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.
Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all
tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does
not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what
hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies,
increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also
create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international
agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word.
If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems
likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the
current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi
lobbies.
President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979
hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of
Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations,"
and announcing new sanctions.
The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating
things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's
fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and
Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11
attackers.
The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant
that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were
"factual."
When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose
with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's
violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after
Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock
grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there
aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.
In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a
substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in
recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites
right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been
the source of repeated false accusations in the past.
And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with
comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be
able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its
neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and
stability" across the Middle East.
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton
laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech
at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen
key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security
interests.
Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, tweeted
yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the
nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."
But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In
2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying
:
The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards
Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional
restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table,
undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these
negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an
intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."
Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that
more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a
negotiation. Cotton
said :
Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's --
doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The
ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal
of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear
infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.
Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance,
despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal
of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a
serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week,
detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the
neoconservative Foundation for
Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for
regime change in Tehran.
"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University
audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a
negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he
appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest
financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's
headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.
But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation,
told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to
discuss policy,"
according to the paper .
Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily
newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname
"Bibiton."
Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's
previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press
Service.
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on
Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to
disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.
"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian
intelligence," Clinton
told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .
Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her
2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian
government.
Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge
against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his
authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.
"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine
America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of
that."
WikiLeaks received
thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen
by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to
the US election.
Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day –
7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland
security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to
interfere in the election.
Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of
the Access Hollywood tape.
"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information,
promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response
to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some
communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood
Access tape."
"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is
either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda
objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.
"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for
the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of
transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political
ledger."
Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state
parties".
In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with
Hillary Clinton".
"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing
glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.
"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."
Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)
There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not
just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely.
Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu
I thought the same way as John in January 2017. We both were definitely wrong. As were
many people who voted for Trump in a hope to block ascendance of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton
to power. Now it is unclear whether Hillary Clinton would be so disastrous in foreign policy
as Trump or slightly less so.
The period when Trump was at least formally ant-war is firmly in the past now and probably
ended with inauguration. In April Trump folded to neocons and destroyed his
anti-war credentials with
Tomahawk salvo in Syria. Instead of fighting "the Washington swap" as he promised to his voters,
he became a part of the swamp. In August Trump himself emerged as a bona-fide warmonger stoking the
tension with North Korea. And in October he decertified Iran deal.
Notable quotes:
"... The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia. ..."
"... If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet! ..."
"... As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers. ..."
When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation
of Russia "hacking the election," Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a
petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead
Putin invited American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday
celebrations in the Kremlin.
Then came the shock that shook Official Washington: President-elect Trump, in the form of a
tweet heard round the world, wrote: "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) -- I always knew he
was very smart!"
And just to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump "pinned" the tweet which means it is the
first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of "pinning" for Trump. And to
be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst
but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, Dec. 30, the day after Obama had issued his
retaliation order.
The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his
ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of
Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if
Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New
Détente with Russia.
If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then
Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment
who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown
armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded
"non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of
both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of
Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking
tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!
Putin as Ally Against the War Party
As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of
U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has
drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail
Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new
battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking
on a wide range of attackers.
Later that afternoon, Maya Kosoff writing for Vanity Fair
put out an article
entitled "Twitter Melts Down over 'Treason' After Trump Praises Putin." The first batch of such
tweets came from "journalists and other foreign policy experts," the next from Evan McMullin,
the former CIA officer who tried to draw off Republican votes from Trump in the general
election, who tweeted: "To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America's greatest
adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this."
Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump's words "treasonous" or
"seditious." In response, Team Trump refused to issue a "clarification," saying instead that
Trump's words spoke for themselves.
As stunning as Trump's tweet was in many ways, it was in other ways entirely predictable.
Despite the mainstream media's scorn and Hillary Clinton's mocking him as Putin's "puppet,"
Trump has held firm to his promise that he will seek peace with Russia and look for areas of
cooperation such as fighting terrorism.
So, even when Trump's Russia comments appeared to cost him politically, he stuck with them,
suggesting that he believes that this détente is important. The rule of thumb is that if
a politician says something that will win votes, you do not know whether it is conviction or
opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes, then you can
bet it is heartfelt.
Trump was bashed over his resistance to the New Cold War both during the Republican
primaries when many GOP leaders were extremely hawkish on Russia and during the general
election when the Clinton campaign sought to paint him as some sort of Manchurian Candidate.
Even his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence staked out a more hawkish position than
Trump.
Trump stood by his more dovish attitude though it presented few electoral advantages and
many negatives. By that test, he appears to be sincere. So, his latest opening to Putin was
entirely predictable.
A Choice of Peace or War
What is troubling, however, is that some Americans who favor peace hate Trump so much that
they recoil from speaking out in his defense over his "treasonous" tweet though they may
privately agree with it. Some progressives are uncomfortable with the mainstream's descent into
crude McCarthyism but don't want to say anything favorable about Trump.
After all, a vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down -- nothing in
between -- though voters may like or dislike some policy prescriptions of one candidate
and other positions of another candidate. And progressives could list many reasons to not vote
for Trump.
But a presidential administration is multi-issued -- not all or none. One can disagree
with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are
outraged over Trump's harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade
deal.
In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump
on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk
about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.
What I've discovered is that many progressives -- as well as many on the Right --
who oppose endless war and disdain empire will tell you in whispers that they do support
Trump's attempt at Détente 2.0, though they doubt he will succeed. In the meantime, they
are keeping their heads down and staying quiet.
But clearly Trump's success depends on how much support he gets -- as weighed against
how much grief he gets. By lacking the courage to defend Trump's "treasonous tweet," those who
want to rein in the warmongers may be missing a rare opportunity. If those who agree with Trump
on this issue stay silent, it may be a lost opportunity as well.
John V. Walsh, an anti-war activist, can be reached at [email protected]
Those two "propaganda solders" from Yale release outright lies about "stealing information
from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. " as it this is a fact. Looks like those
students learned quickly from their Yale "color revolution" teachers ;-)
The USA perfected election interference technique in dozen of color revolution
in xUSSR republics and other areas of the globe. Actually the first color revolution was organized
in 1974.
Now DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) and elements of intelligence agencies and MS who support them simply can not
quit... Now quitting involved potential significant PR damage... McCarthyism has its own internal
dynamics. The danger for DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) now is that
if Russian were investigated why Israelis and Saudies (along with other Gulf monarchies) were
not.
In the past few weeks, we have learned that the Russian government
reached more than 10 million Americans with a misinformation campaign on Facebook, and that
hackers
targeted 21 state election systems , stealing information from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. These are just the latest of many revelations about
Russia's unprecedented interference in the election.
It is cold comfort that we have no evidence so far that Moscow actually manipulated vote
tallies to change the election's outcome.
But what if it emerges that Russian operatives were successful on that front as well?
Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an
American president through active vote manipulation?
The Constitution offers no clear way to remedy such a disaster.
Any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia raises its own set of important
issues -- now being assiduously investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller. But the
disturbing scenario in which hackers manipulate election results, conceivably rendering the
true vote tally unrecoverable, would pose a unique threat to a foundational principle of our
democracy: rule by the consent of the governed. We would in no sense have a government "by the
people."
Although such a constitutional crisis now seems all too plausible, we have yet to seriously
consider provisions that might protect our democracy -- measures that could allow us to reverse
such a result.
... ... ...
Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart are students at Yale Law School.
When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people
trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles
that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress
is calling on Facebook and Twitter to
disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence
the election in favor of Trump.
But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies
on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics
remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to
them the world over, often without ever realizing it.
Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research,
Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social
media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S.,
Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.
It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are
enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination
of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to
be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.
By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual
support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable,
common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard,
argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you
are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."
On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.
The U.S.: Rise of the bots
America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online
than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.
In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a "
watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."
Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots
or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before
the election, fake news was shared
as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described
specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots
multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall,
pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at
key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers
-- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly
retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.
One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the
Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And
it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump
received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.
Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton
spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally
focused digital ads.
But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one
famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called
"super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the
Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.
"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012,"
a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are
now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of
this paradigm shift."
"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns
heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."
The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and
then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson
said.
The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors,
while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist
(he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial
disclosure, he held shares worth as much as
$5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee
has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.
But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the
US government hired a public relations firm to develop a "
persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political
purposes.
The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL),
has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The
Washington Post
reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.
There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts
that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger
-- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.
Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California
Computer Science department, even
suggests
the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized
wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by
reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel
Macron in this year's French presidential election.
October 11, 2017 The media is having a field day with a supposedly leaked report that
President Trump called for a ten-fold increase in US nuclear weapons in July. That is the
occasion of Secretary of State Tillerson calling the president a "moron," according to the
media. It's all supposed to point to how ridiculous President Trump is for wanting more nuclear
weapons. But who's idea was the current one trillion dollar nuclear weapons "modernization"
plan? It was then-president Obama's idea. And who appropriated the money to get started?
Congress. More on the bipartisan support for military corporate welfare in today's Ron Paul
Liberty Report:
It was from day 1 absurd. But they keep the story running because the goal of the
parasitic elites is to control the narrative on the news channels. They will get even more
aggressive the closer we will get to the final economic collapse. They need to overload us
with any BS they can find to completely kill our senses for what is real and what not. They
don't even care we find out about all the false flags and hoaxes because tomorrow will be a
new one. It's called information overload.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
According to a new report from NBC News, President Trump responded to a slide at a cabinet
meeting showing that the number of US nuclear weapons has gone down since the late 1960s by
demanding a nearly ten-fold increase in the US arsenal .
This NBC report quoted unnamed officials present at the meeting, who said Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson had to explain to Trump why both legally and practically such a massive expansion
of the arsenal was not practical. It was also reported that immediately following this meeting
Tillerson declared Trump to be a "moron."
But as with the "moron" thing, which Trump denied happened but also later challenged
Tillerson to an IQ test over,
Trump insists that this too didn't happen , and accused NBC of making it entirely up for no
reason.
But President Trump has swung wildly around on the issue of nuclear weapons since elected.
Even before inauguration he was sparring with NBC News on a report he wanted to start a global
arms race until the world " comes
to its senses ." Then in February he was widely reported as wanting
to build up the nuclear arsenal because he believed America had "fallen behind."
Thos leakers are pretty persistent and have highly placed sources, if any... But
taken as series of events, this is clearly has the stamp "color revolution" on it -- a
multistep attempt of discreditation of the legitimately elected President, directed to force his
removal of resignation.
Not that Trump is flawless (and with North Korea and Iran tweets he is helping greatly the
leakers), and he already folded to neocons several months ago. Still the attempt is dirty and
nasty...
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has privately confided that he believes
President Donald Trump only has a 30% chance of completing his full term, a
source told Vanity Fair .
According to two of Vanity Fair's sources with knowledge of the conversation, Bannon warned
Trump several months ago that the biggest threat to his presidency is not impeachment by
Congress, but the 25th Amendment -- which could allow his Cabinet to vote to remove him.
CNN has been unable to independently confirm these reported conversations. Bannon could not
be reached for comment.
The
25th Amendment to the Constitution is a measure that establishes a system for replacing the
president or vice president in case there is a death, removal, resignation or
incapacitation.
Also, if the vice president "and a majority of either the principal officers of the
executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" make a "written
declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting
president."
The 25th Amendment was adopted following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in
1963.
According to the two sources who spoke to Vanity Fair, when Bannon raised the 25th Amendment
as a concern, Trump responded by asking, "What's that?"
The report comes amid a public feud
between Trump and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who is retiring from Congress after 2018. The
two have gone back and forth via Twitter, and Corker told The New York Times that he thinks
Trump could take the US "on the path to World War III."
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be
take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that
hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran,
as I wrote yesterday
. On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the
slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and
trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation,
more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.
Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015
deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to
eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either
let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just
as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish
petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates
being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.
And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant.
Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand
for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion.
When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.
Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes
at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran
to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.
There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to
seek historical analogues for Trump , but
seldom has there been
a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency
work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier
and scarier.
Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be
take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that
hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran,
as I wrote yesterday
. On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the
slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and
trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation,
more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.
Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015
deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to
eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either
let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just
as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish
petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates
being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.
And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant.
Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand
for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion.
When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.
Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes
at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran
to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.
There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to
seek historical analogues for Trump , but
seldom has there been
a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency
work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier
and scarier.
Again anonymous leak sped by all neoliberal MSM. According to
Trump Blasts 'Disgusting' Media as He Threatens NBC Licenses
"It's frankly disgusting the way
the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should want to look into it,"
Trump told reporters as he met at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
President Trump says he "never discussed" increasing nuclear arsenal.
Aides have doubted prior presidents' wisdom,
health, or sobriety, but never have so many insiders treated the
commander-in-chief like a child.
As every toddler knows, bigger is better, whether that's two scoops of ice cream (
versus
one for everyone else
), a border wall, or a nuclear arsenal.
And that was President Trump's reaction during a July meeting with military and
national-security leaders about the nuclear arsenal, too,
according to NBC News
. In total, he sought a tenfold increase in the U.S. store of
nukes:
Trump's comments, the officials said, came in response to a briefing slide he was
shown that charted the steady reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons since the late 1960s.
Trump indicated he wanted a bigger stockpile, not the bottom position on that
downward-sloping curve.
Trump's aides were taken aback: "Officials briefly explained the legal and practical
impediments to a nuclear buildup and how the current military posture is stronger than it
was at the height of the buildup." Officials said there's currently no plan for a massive
buildup.
If Trump's approach to nukes and ice cream alike is childlike, this story is the latest
example of how Trump's aides treat him like a child too. In the case of the nuclear
weapons, advisers seem to have taken Trump's outburst as bizarre and dangerous and quietly
moved to suppress it. In the past, aides have
disagreed
with presidents' judgments as unwise,
worried
that their drinking would on occasion render them dangerous, or
expressed concern
that they were suffering from senility. Nor is it uncommon for a
politician's critics to describe him as childish and unprepared -- decades before Lloyd
Bentsen
slammed
Dan Quayle as "no Jack Kennedy," Richard Nixon
warned
that Jack Kennedy was not prepared for the presidency.
What is different in the Trump administration is that it's the president's own loyalists
who view, speak about, and treat him as a child.
This is apparent in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's description of the president,
following this meeting, as a "
moron
" -- suggesting
that Trump is simply not cognitively or emotionally up to the job. And this week has seen
several other examples.
There is of course Senator Bob Corker's
remark
that the White House functions as "an adult day care" and his follow-up to
The New York Times
: "He doesn't realize that, you know, that we could be heading
towards World War III with the kinds of comments that he's making."
Corker also complained,
like a weary parent, "I don't know why the president tweets out things that are not true.
You know he does it, everyone knows he does it, but he does."
Corker, who chairs the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, indicated he does not trust Trump to keep America safe, saying
that Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Chief of Staff John Kelly "are those
people that help separate our country from chaos."
That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
Notable quotes:
"... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
"... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in
Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers,
investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.
Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades,
an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy
– even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling
economically excluded and increasingly angry.
Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income
ladder.
... ... ...
Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in
ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social
inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains
among its core operating principles.
... ... ...
Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains
a core operating principle
The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the
problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance
and diversity on the defensive in America.
Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation,
union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security
of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying
over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.
... ... ...
History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall
into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of
Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly
all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.
Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared
heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment,
but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.
... ... ...
David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded
Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy
"... "I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric... ..."
"... "Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to." ..."
"... When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do." ..."
In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting mainstream media bias, James O'Keefe
has just dropped a new
undercover video which takes direct aim at the New York Times' Audience Strategy Editor, Nick
Dudich, who admits repeatedly to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things,
damage President Trump's businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation.
While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's
why I'm here."
Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas
Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."
Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:
"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...
"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump
brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating
his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about
his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do
something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."
When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories
make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."
To our complete 'shock', O'Keefe also learned the Dudich worked for Hillary's 2016 presidential
campaign and Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012...
In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:
"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do
video ... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."
He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to
leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore
to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."
Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after
the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like,
this isn't going to change."
Bizarrely, Dudich also claims to have joined the Antifa movement as an undercover agent for the
FBI...a request which he originally said came from his godfather, James Comey, even though he subsequently
retracted that statement.
Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa. "Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once
upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get
to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined
that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they
were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not." "How'd you meet Comey?" asked
the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and
his wife for a really long time." "Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm
not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if
they can keep me on."
One wonders if this qualifies as sedition. Imagine if someone had done something like this
to a previous president. If some group was on record trying to bankrupt Washington's Mt Vernon,
or Teddy Roosevelt's family members, with the full intent of subverting the government.
So he said he was working as an informant for the FBI and joined ANTIFA, was that a lie? What
type of a small minded fool lies about being a "special agent" working for the Gov't? Well this
type. Fox news "fair and balanced" , NY Times "Fairly Biased". But don't worry the Liberals will
still view the NY Times as the Paper of Record. Looney
Smith Mundt Act. The Presstitute appendage's of the Criminal Deep State can Propagandandize
/ Gas Light the masses with Impunity. And, in their sick, twisted, perverted minds, it's all Legal.
Yes, this is pretty much "bombshell" category considering Dudich's position, his title, a fancy
word play on Propagandist. MSM will never mention it. Not one aspect of it.
But would be worrying if it were the French rather than the Russians "interfering" with our
sainted elections?
AS is seen, it is not corruption that is perceived as the problem, it is WHO's corruption that
is the problem.
Who owns the NYTs and does anyone care? Carlos Slim? Why would we care if the owner is the
resident of one of the most violent and corrupt countries in the world, one emmersed in a socialist
bankrupt ideology for a hundred years?
I do find it strange that we started the last century so aware and afraid of the socialist/communist
virus, but as was predicted, we have embraced every last tenet of it's ideology under the mantle
of "progressivism". Note that communism is no longer a threat, just another alternative increasingly
openly embraced by the media and colleges....just like they said they would.
And it is TRUMP who is now the threat, not communist collectivist dependency. Interesting.
if it is sedition it looks like we can all count on Sessioms to not do a fucking thing about
it. Why haven't Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Rice and Obama been indicted? Or lying-under-oath master
Clapper?
I think you can certainly argue that the Dem/Spook/Media effort to create the Russiahoax stuff,
all as the feds never even examined the dnc server, or interviewed Assange, is quite literally
conspiracy and sedition.
Sessions isn't indicting, nor being directed to, nor fired. It's a big club...
What about the lack of professional decorum and a paper that regards itself as a premier publication?
All of these connected-up people at the top expect us to regard them as -- unquestionably -- deserving
of high positions, but they feel free to let loose with unprofessional behavior any time they
want if it serves 1) their own careerist means or 2) the careerist goals of their cronies.
"Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.
"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So,
I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I
joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing
if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."
"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained.
"My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "
Doesn't he make it sound a lot like he's just another 'made' chucklehead in the Mob?
Dudich is a poster child for the new millenial way of thinking. In their view lying is perfectly
okay so long as it serves one's arch-purpose. In this case it is to prevent Trump's agenda and
his 2020 bid (yet to be announced) for re-election. The tactic has been adopted by many of the
NYTimes reporters. It is the same with the other major media outlets (not Fox/WSJ so much). For
instance, if you write a comment in the WaPo online, if it does not conform to their liberal agenda,
it gets deleted and that is dishonest (mine were deleted several times. I have since banished
them). The media is very devious in how it is attempting to take over political contol of America.
They are a shameless and crooked bunch, making it very difficult to fight back. The real revolution
in America begins when the true conservative soul of America says, "No more". Until that happens,
further social decay will be the norm.
Too damn many English majors with serious emotional problems. Get Science and Engineering background
folks in there and all this non sense would end. This kid is a punk and worthy of a good daddy
belt beat down. Who raised this crap?
"... "I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric... ..."
"... "Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to." ..."
"... When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do." ..."
In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting mainstream media bias, James O'Keefe
has just dropped a new
undercover video which takes direct aim at the New York Times' Audience Strategy Editor, Nick
Dudich, who admits repeatedly to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things,
damage President Trump's businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation.
While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's
why I'm here."
Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas
Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."
Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:
"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...
"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump
brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating
his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about
his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do
something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."
When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories
make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."
To our complete 'shock', O'Keefe also learned the Dudich worked for Hillary's 2016 presidential
campaign and Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012...
In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:
"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do
video ... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."
He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to
leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore
to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."
Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after
the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like,
this isn't going to change."
Bizarrely, Dudich also claims to have joined the Antifa movement as an undercover agent for the
FBI...a request which he originally said came from his godfather, James Comey, even though he subsequently
retracted that statement.
Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa. "Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once
upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get
to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined
that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they
were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not." "How'd you meet Comey?" asked
the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and
his wife for a really long time." "Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm
not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if
they can keep me on."
One wonders if this qualifies as sedition. Imagine if someone had done something like this
to a previous president. If some group was on record trying to bankrupt Washington's Mt Vernon,
or Teddy Roosevelt's family members, with the full intent of subverting the government.
So he said he was working as an informant for the FBI and joined ANTIFA, was that a lie? What
type of a small minded fool lies about being a "special agent" working for the Gov't? Well this
type. Fox news "fair and balanced" , NY Times "Fairly Biased". But don't worry the Liberals will
still view the NY Times as the Paper of Record. Looney
Smith Mundt Act. The Presstitute appendage's of the Criminal Deep State can Propagandandize
/ Gas Light the masses with Impunity. And, in their sick, twisted, perverted minds, it's all Legal.
Yes, this is pretty much "bombshell" category considering Dudich's position, his title, a fancy
word play on Propagandist. MSM will never mention it. Not one aspect of it.
But would be worrying if it were the French rather than the Russians "interfering" with our
sainted elections?
AS is seen, it is not corruption that is perceived as the problem, it is WHO's corruption that
is the problem.
Who owns the NYTs and does anyone care? Carlos Slim? Why would we care if the owner is the
resident of one of the most violent and corrupt countries in the world, one emmersed in a socialist
bankrupt ideology for a hundred years?
I do find it strange that we started the last century so aware and afraid of the socialist/communist
virus, but as was predicted, we have embraced every last tenet of it's ideology under the mantle
of "progressivism". Note that communism is no longer a threat, just another alternative increasingly
openly embraced by the media and colleges....just like they said they would.
And it is TRUMP who is now the threat, not communist collectivist dependency. Interesting.
if it is sedition it looks like we can all count on Sessioms to not do a fucking thing about
it. Why haven't Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Rice and Obama been indicted? Or lying-under-oath master
Clapper?
I think you can certainly argue that the Dem/Spook/Media effort to create the Russiahoax stuff,
all as the feds never even examined the dnc server, or interviewed Assange, is quite literally
conspiracy and sedition.
Sessions isn't indicting, nor being directed to, nor fired. It's a big club...
What about the lack of professional decorum and a paper that regards itself as a premier publication?
All of these connected-up people at the top expect us to regard them as -- unquestionably -- deserving
of high positions, but they feel free to let loose with unprofessional behavior any time they
want if it serves 1) their own careerist means or 2) the careerist goals of their cronies.
"Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.
"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So,
I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I
joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing
if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."
"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained.
"My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "
Doesn't he make it sound a lot like he's just another 'made' chucklehead in the Mob?
Dudich is a poster child for the new millenial way of thinking. In their view lying is perfectly
okay so long as it serves one's arch-purpose. In this case it is to prevent Trump's agenda and
his 2020 bid (yet to be announced) for re-election. The tactic has been adopted by many of the
NYTimes reporters. It is the same with the other major media outlets (not Fox/WSJ so much). For
instance, if you write a comment in the WaPo online, if it does not conform to their liberal agenda,
it gets deleted and that is dishonest (mine were deleted several times. I have since banished
them). The media is very devious in how it is attempting to take over political contol of America.
They are a shameless and crooked bunch, making it very difficult to fight back. The real revolution
in America begins when the true conservative soul of America says, "No more". Until that happens,
further social decay will be the norm.
Too damn many English majors with serious emotional problems. Get Science and Engineering background
folks in there and all this non sense would end. This kid is a punk and worthy of a good daddy
belt beat down. Who raised this crap?
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more
or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but
at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.
Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities
withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find
convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone
interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent
week:
September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases
have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's
various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly
testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties,
for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper
op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of
retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that
put things in a broader perspective.
But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.
Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans
may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not
that big a deal.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire."
With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved
grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at
least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between
effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of
dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?
Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable,
like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on
television.
Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at
explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing
explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the
more speculative.
Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:
1. U.S. casualtyrates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the
number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been
lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a
typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in
hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those
casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long
as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't
counted).
2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous
speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun
that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent
on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and
power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he
continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later,
Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As
such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars
expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of
investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on
Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that
connection.
On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the
point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at
Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation
to "support the troops" in the
narrowest imaginable
terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their
part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected
representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in
chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.
Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and
boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do
is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.
4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes
nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats,
notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of
Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic
constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill
of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens
are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To
question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses
two stone tablets after all.
5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public
discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly
repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political
rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of
Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker
insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings
about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous
references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too
deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading
displaces serious thought.
6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the
present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert
La Follette or J. William Fulbright ,
who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a
capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not,
it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic
multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our
attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that
happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely
significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours,
be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a
dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win?
Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then,
slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.
7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge
in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well.
Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle
to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of
promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human
beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously.
Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might
think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted
expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp,
getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the
framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly
criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending
them almost entirely escapes notice.
8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism.
As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde
side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill
Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly
denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have
moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an
image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and
sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in
the armed forces, tweeting
that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
pushed
back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda,
the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called
to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an
earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a
successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from
Ranger School or command
Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't
expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any
sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.
You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing
wars.
Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft
in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present
martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the
Congress!
BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity
shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!
One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the
Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and
threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual
military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the
Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.
How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless
increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore
explained:
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.
Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they
were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who
cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.
Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service
industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.
So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money
for campaign treasuries.
Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. –
but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.
The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is
taken on seriously.
The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on
everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear
arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.
So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the
United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard
to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely
premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else.
But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out
the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions
they witness.
Bob Corker followed up on his initial response to Trump's attack on him with some
scathing criticism in an interview with The New York Times :
Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged
in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like "a reality show,"
with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation "on the path to World War
III."
In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed
about a president who acts "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something."
"He concerns me," Mr. Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."
Corker isn't saying anything that many others haven't already said, but it is significant that
it is coming from such a high-profile elected Republican. The senator was among a very few in the
Senate inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he sometimes went out of
his way to say positive things about Trump's foreign policy. During the election, he was
saying that Trump was bringing a "degree of realism" and "maturity" to foreign policy. That was
always wishful thinking, and Corker's criticism now is a belated admission that he was wrong about
all of that. It is fair to fault Corker for not realizing or saying any of these things sooner, but
that doesn't make it any less extraordinary that he is saying it on the record. Thanks to Trump's
foolish attack on him yesterday, he evidently no longer feels obliged to keep quiet about the problems
he has with the president.
One of the more interesting things that Corker confirmed concerned Trump's repeated undermining
of Tillerson:
The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter
last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson's negotiations with North Korea.
"A lot of people think that there is some kind of 'good cop, bad cop' act underway, but that's
just not true," Mr. Corker said.
Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his
Twitter fingers. "I know he has hurt, in several instances, he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations
that were underway by tweeting things out," Mr. Corker said.
We already knew this, but it is important that someone in Corker's position is acknowledging that
the administration's foreign policy is every bit as dysfunctional as it appears to be. It remains
to be seen whether Corker's break with Trump will translate into meaningful opposition to any part
of Trump's foreign policy, but his remarks in this interview suggest that it might.
A new report indicates that President Trump, aggravated by NBC's reporting, has taken to calling
the network "fake" and "run by morons."
The Daily Beast
reported Monday that according to a White House official, Trump thinks NBC is "run by morons,"
and that "Trump regularly complains during the day and evenings about NBC as 'fake' and out to 'get'
him in the 'same way he [recently] did with CNN.'"
Trump has previously had tensions with CNN, once tweeting out a fake edited WWE gif of Trump tackling
a man with a CNN logo for a head.
President Trump has had problems with NBC News since they reported that Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson
called him a "moron," possibly a "f**king moron."
From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has
substituted hype for evidence.
Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign
collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is
still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence
officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald
Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence
report "uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet," The Atlantic
observed that "it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions." Noting the "absence
of any proof" and "hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack," The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community's
message "essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" That remains the case today.
The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that
"they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the
communications reviewed so far." Well-placed critics of Trump -- including former DNI chief
James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator
Dianne Feinstein -- concur to date.
Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place.
Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that "in the days after the
election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss." Instead, one source
recounted, aides were ordered "to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way."
Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. Already, Russian hacking was the
centerpiece of the argument."
But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements
of state power that oppose Trump's call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing
to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that
front. The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic
president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric -- by all indications, a ruse -- alarmed
foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings
are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller,
which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his
improbable victory.
These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary
standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism.
Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are
minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments,
only to often be undermined by the article's content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language
-- likely, suspected, apparent -- appears next to "Russians" to account for the absence of
concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs
issues far beyond its original scope.
The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as
smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative. One was
news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed
building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted
to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. "I will get
Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Sater wrote, believing that voters would
be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States' "most difficult
adversary." The New York Times describes the outcome:
There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email
suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which
had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote
to a general inbox for press inquiries.
The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.
Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the
e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of
interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard
to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump
made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story
should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump's
lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.
The revelation of Sater's e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone
offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and
its government's support for Mr. Trump." Goldstone's e-mail was more fruitful than Sater's in
that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes.
Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be
reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as "
a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter " who has " launched
a host of crudely named websites -- including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com to attack a former business partner." Meanwhile,
Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an
intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.
Neoliberal MSM continue to try to create discord within trump administration. Now this is CNN
turn to spread the rumors (aka "fake news"). Again "anonymous source" are all over the pace in
this story. they probably should be called "anonymous fakers".
The only think I do not understand is why they are continuing targeting Trump. Trump folded
and abandoned his election promises. What do they want, as his resignation will open a can of
worm that is more dangerous them continuation of Trump tenure in white house.
This looks extremely disingenuous from MSM fakers. Are they running our of option to
blackmail Trump?
Notable quotes:
"... Early Wednesday, Tillerson spoke with Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, by phone as the story aired on morning television. ..."
"... "Total confidence in Rex. I have total confidence," he said. He called the reports about Tillerson's "moron" comment "totally phony." ..."
This week, Tillerson insisted in public that he's never considered leaving the
administration, and vowed to remain in his post "for as long as the president feels I can be
useful to achieving his objectives."
Trump, however, has expressed frustration that Tillerson is stymieing aspects of his agenda.
Trump grew furious on Wednesday when early morning news reports emerged that Tillerson
had called him a "moron" during a meeting about Afghanistan over the summer. The public
airing of the insult deeply angered the president, who vented on Twitter that the story
amounted to "fake news."
Multiple sources told CNN that Trump was aware that Tillerson had used the word to describe
him before the public report emerged, though it wasn't clear when he first learned of it.
Having the information leaked, however, enraged him. Early Wednesday, Tillerson spoke with
Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, by phone as the story aired on morning television. Both
agreed that Tillerson should deliver a statement refuting aspects of the report, which also
said he had considered resigning from his post.
Tillerson delivered a set of remarks that adamantly denied he'd ever considered leaving the
administration, and offered effusive praise for Trump's foreign policy objectives.
"There's never been a consideration in my mind to leave," Tillerson said from the State
Department Treaty Room.
But he did not deny calling Trump a "moron" when asked directly. Later, the State Department
spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said Tillerson told her he'd never used that language to describe
the president.
After delivering his mid-morning statement, the secretary of state met at the White House
with Kelly, who had remained behind in Washington as Trump flew
cross-country to console survivors of Sunday's mass shooting in Las Vegas . The President
viewed the statement from Air Force One and later, inside a hospital trauma center, insisted he
remained confident in his top diplomat.
"Total confidence in Rex. I have total confidence," he said. He called the reports about
Tillerson's "moron" comment "totally phony."
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian
Salama.
WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel
with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage
the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.
Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House,
where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration
officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so
to manage day-to-day operations.
Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven
officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public
appearance on Wednesday morning.
Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said
he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had
asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson,
is helpful or harmful to the administration.
NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of
clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by
calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were
aware of the matter at the time.
Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson
had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to
Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas
to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.
Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m.
Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly,
officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized
for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I
wasn't privy to."
Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning,
but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.
The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening
statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the
rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When
Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials
said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration
officials.
Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private
meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to
make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S.
would talk to North Korea.
State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his
flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his
team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on
administration official said.
Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the
North Korean regime.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by
CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from
being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an
enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that
role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating
with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think
the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and
Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles
for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to
invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea.
Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base
on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign
policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism.
This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there
also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing
Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's
borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence
that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible
than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election
or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic
Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled. ..."
"... The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. ..."
The second half of 2008 was a very bad time for Deripaska, as the Russian aluminium and
other businesses on which he depended, collapsed into insolvency with accumulated debts at one
point of about $20 billion. Deripaska told the Cayman Island court: "By mid-summer 2008, there
were clear indications of the oncoming world financial crisis, and at this time the Petitioner
was the only limited partner in the Partnership which had made only one investment (BSC [Black
Sea Cable]). In September 2008 the Petitioner [Deripaska] informed the GP [Manafort] that it
was suspending further investment into the Partnership."
For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide
accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner
has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were
performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the
New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been
purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash
– Deripaska had been hustled.
A few weeks ago Kurochkina refused to tell the New York Times whether Deripaska is
continuing to pursue Manafort's $18 million debt. That newspaper claimed "Mr. Deripaska appears
to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment
partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015." The newspaper reporters didn't ask, and
Kurochkina didn't explain, what services Manafort had invoiced Deripaska for which $7.3 million
was paid out. Noone has asked Deripaska whether he thinks Manafort kept the money for
himself.
The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he
had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel
car division. The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to
believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported
here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their
word, and cancelled the Opel sale. If Deripaska had been content to leave Manafort holding
$26,288,400 of the Russian oligarch's cash through the 2008 crisis and the General Motors
negotiations in 2009, his patience had run out by November 2009, when the cancellation of the
Opel sale became public.
On November 5, 2009, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced
after his cabinet ministers had discussed the Opel deal, "it shows that our American partners
have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into
account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward
partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone
despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good
lesson."
These days, according to the media leaks, US Government investigators of Manafort are
pursuing a different lesson. This is that Manafort took Deripaska's money for the purpose of
subverting the US presidential election of 2016. The court evidence indicates that Manafort was
paid for Ukrainian assets which didn't materialize, and kept the money for himself through a
period when the US government first decided to sell a multi-billion dollar part of
then-bankrupt General Motors to Derripaska, and then, quite suddenly, decided not to.
Considering the following, (follow the link) that stretch thingie starts making more and
more sense.
The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were
reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials
broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale.
From the linked article;
When Hillary Clinton (lead, left) was US Secretary of State in 2009, she proved she
could lie to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel; keep secret her hostility towards Russia
even in her secret staff emails; and take money in her back pocket for an $8 billion deal
between the US, Germany and Russia recommended by her subordinates. The record, recently
revealed in US investigations of Clinton's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation,
shows why the Kremlin assessment of Clinton is hostile and blunt – Clinton invites
and takes bribes, but can't be relied on to keep her bargains
A lot of people remember being screw*d out of a $million, even 5 or 10 years after the
fact.
The way I read this post, and the embedded history of Hillary's double-cross of Deripaska,
is that there is an unstated agreement among our current ruling class, that it's ok to
double-cross and provoke Russia/Russians for profit, but not to make actual deals because
that would be collaboration at least, and maybe treason.
I thought the same thing. Does Manafort have stock in Blackwater or what? The blithe
narration of unmitigated corruption says all one needs to know of the times we live in.
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of
Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.
The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist
billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election
of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation
of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic
neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens
also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated
Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.
This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism
to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility
and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that
threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering
to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering
of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness
to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist
domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral
and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall
Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and
liberties.
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic
gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing
inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.
Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible
to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering
– be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get
celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile,
poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.
In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and
Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie
Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the
rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist
outcome!
In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity,
courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.
We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under
Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to
expanding US military presence.
As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching,
Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that
calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.
For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead
we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.
theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40
To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology
that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries
which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.
farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.
Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship
at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.
That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now
its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.
if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!
Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33
Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!
ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24
Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle
classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues
overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate
wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal
stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and
it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short
game has every chance of doing what he said it would.
SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words
and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners,
oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians
abroad.
Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob?
Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute
the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.
He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the
day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position.
He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people
to go along much better than HRC ever did.
But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none
of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest
scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies,
to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he
never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do
it, yet he never even tried.
ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37
I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist'
at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.
LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05
True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term
is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point
that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.
Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show
such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.
I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances
beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.
l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea
party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated
and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They
now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest
of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is
a planned economy.
Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40
This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper
historical context.
However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.
Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist
Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations
who fund their campaigns.
Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the
big Wall Street investment banks.
Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear
that they will once again be marginalized.
Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt
neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very
difficult.
VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42
Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.
macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46
It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles
represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who
could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become
another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound
byte does little to illuminate anything.
Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties,
with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists,
systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to
a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering
the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late)
to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark
with the dark face of the devil behind it.
We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've
had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has
been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy
has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties,
but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've
been badly let down by it.
It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that
demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might
start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the
ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution.
Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still
believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.
VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00
I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments
have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.
Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language
is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.
I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem.
If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.
As US lawmakers demand social media companies show how their platforms were allegedly used
by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, WikiLeaks co-founder tweeted emails that show
Facebook executives in direct communication with one candidate's team.
Beginning on October 7
last year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton's
campaign chairman John Podesta. The daily drops continued for a couple days after the November
8 election.
On Thursday, as US media were speculating about "Russian" meddling on Twitter,
Facebook and Reddit, Julian Assange tweeted some of the Podesta emails with a reminder that the
social network's leading lights were Clinton fans.
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into
U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians
attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election,
officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this
extraordinary claim.
This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees
– that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential
election is now in doubt.
Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that
this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":
MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant
that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have
now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland
Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election.
. .targeting their election infrastructure."
They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging
the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting
that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as
our President?"
So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall
apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the
original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its
election systems targeted by Russian hackers:
The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there
was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had
anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator,
Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."
Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the
named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:
Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were
an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.
But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over
again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based
on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest
scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.
The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively
chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time
in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony
Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:
Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid,
causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have
to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to
publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the
internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted
sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?
Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all
based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near?
Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that
casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune
retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the
huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial,
unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch
and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?
And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each
time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread
them say little to nothing when it is debunked.
None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that
Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by
the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states
that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention,
have now been repudiated.
But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails
when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion
as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.
Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma
– it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates
numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded
any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election),
even if they end up being debunked.
A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter
more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story
is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic
national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former
acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the
founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled
(this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and
David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper)
– calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war
with Russia").
The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic:
they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate
an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter
accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their
lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."
They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff
and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand,
as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed
by the nation's least trustworthy sources.
But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility
and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite
circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin
aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during
the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions
of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.
That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the
biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike
the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.
No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must
overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see
evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that
is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence
for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least
adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for
claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).
Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate
as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets,
have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and
reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of
neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal
march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite
(nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the
leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC,
Deutsche Welle and
Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and
Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other
Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of
effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of
communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands
that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny
percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official
propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.
During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and
journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries
would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was
shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or
watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against
the rulers.
So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV
stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as
jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent
the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.
After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes
in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West
German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic
prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than
those who couldn't watch Western television.
But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The
Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient
protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government
successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional
wisdom.
As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany
more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more
politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole
people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."
Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were
actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.
The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to
have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had
attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium
of the people.'"
Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea:
Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides
free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in
Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov
contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political
problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and
watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.
Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun
to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy
P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.
Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and
can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who
cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race
spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according
to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had
during the Republican primaries that he won.
Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages
don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to
Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you
can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively
participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the
content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.
Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the
legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with
messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying
behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from
anger to dismissal to laughter.
In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network
purchased Current
TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched
an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the
government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to
manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.
Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news
shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease
operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its
ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al
Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.
You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media
environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks
like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno
sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large
American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.
That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America ,
but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by
launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China
Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster
China Central
Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated
with Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the
Russian
government that operates cable and satellitetelevision channels directed to
audiences outside of Russia.
After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news
junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of
the day watching these foreign networks?
Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another
Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the
Russian
government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players
in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency
to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral
interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing
influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the
network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly
impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.
According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media
properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have
been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic
order."
And in a long cover story in TheNew York Times Magazine this month, with the
headline, "
RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has
"built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be
impossible to stop."
But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to
reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most
successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can
access its channel, not those who actually watch it."
As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by
the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only
0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.
The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT
might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in
the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to
form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse
online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the
Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."
Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and
memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that
apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos
get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.
But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is
narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the
network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011
tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the
dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to
"undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT,
Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at
promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective,
these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of
the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th
Century.
The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great
Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social
anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist
parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.
But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize
East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union
at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as
symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.
Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the
producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were
interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the
majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the
content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to
it.
Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to
members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited
anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the
producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the
receivers.
There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American
political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win
the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That
pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained
some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former
World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then
Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's
Southern segregationist ticket.
Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch
of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential
election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were
even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by
Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")
Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian
propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining
more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of
the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of
Americans.
In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their
Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.
Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times,
The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and the National Interest.
For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during
the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat
by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.
RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.
It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very
diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled.
Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign
information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and
manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a
depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to
understand the world.
Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows
that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional
forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out
the external info.
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".
Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli
propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to
be.
Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign
meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most
sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.
The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China.
But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to
influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in
scale and impact.
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States,
have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can
dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."
It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today,
unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and
politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more
and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.
So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying
to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their
worldview in the process?
You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their
government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic
assertion.
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think
they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign
propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to
propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the
way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work
through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw
Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.
Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.
I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished"
party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment
to the country.
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation
to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.
The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result
in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated
by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.
Peace is not
in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis,
and this could not be allowed to happen .
David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors,
many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch
hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from
the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies,
and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.
But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions
to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return.
In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but
himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.
When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises
to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before
he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.
The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White
House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.
You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!
The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power'
is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.
"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view
from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.
This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern
Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's
Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed
out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html
and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting
to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their
corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.
Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio
War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at
The eXiled
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying
freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because
we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the
last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or
MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the
media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life.
That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using
"terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the
the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy
run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan
years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote
about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being
Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview
between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness-
a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The
Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule
the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of
false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know
who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical
of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working
for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power
. . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether
they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin
agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense
as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr.
de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation
is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were
to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything
must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own
recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks,
to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or
his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running
against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they
didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this
- donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language
are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens,
Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers
over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line
about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop"
this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what
MJ's partner writes now:
RUSSIAN EXPANSION
Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual
expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different
rules. Or maybe no rules at all.
The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton
supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with
neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton.
The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and
Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point
was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they
knew it or not.
* * *
What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this
current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting
campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced
by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed
into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression,
harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if
history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.
Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now
how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks
when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked
off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures
to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s -
defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein
& Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.
As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee
to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.
Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive
media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the
next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of
this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator,
published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline
read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support
the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism
may be interested in you.
It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security
Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election
cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.
By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother
Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer
accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam
Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:
To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee
investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not
want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.
So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks
- yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists"
while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same
warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.
* * *
Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into
Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened
from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most
dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two
were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.
To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding
federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs.
A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress
was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything
- Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.
Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting
women's right to abortion.
Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because
John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most
famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken
prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he
was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled
him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse
code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".
In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who
was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on
the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because
not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically
obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat
to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse
than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant
the rest of us to hate Russians too.
Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault
of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America
that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica
of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters
with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis!
Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like
some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's
America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily
fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as,
well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last
November.
Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries'
minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and
a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then,
as now.
"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their
sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton
What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex.
It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans.
It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary
political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.
Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his
best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.
Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton
and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans
had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's
values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!
And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.
A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political
'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s,
he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's
troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."
Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the
sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts,
the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian
prostitutes in our current panic. . . .
To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol
Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great
service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office
in 1986.
Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis
- now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the
Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its
core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally
appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.
Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of
the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors.
I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof
of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.
These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam
Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you
can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them
together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically
opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually
quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and
feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most
plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned
into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative,
view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and
panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia
that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale.
The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them
a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening
The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution.
Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin
"active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew
it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for
vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans.
Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against
Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone
opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to
refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations
into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".
I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation"
history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.
After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history),
Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming
out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried
to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation"
is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged
in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda,
disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.
Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps
and spooks who fed Denton's committee.
I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger
threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has
done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then
there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any
way, shape or form.
This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US
can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the
1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-(
And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother
hiding it anymore.
@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions
of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister,
so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)
American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested
in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common
good of the Syrians today.
Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always
'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world,
how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever
we can and enrich the 1%.
Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they
cash in on the chant du jour.
Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent
neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves
not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking
like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively
reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.
It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia
with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic
material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.
Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could
get their hands on them [
Operation Paperclip
] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with
stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they
say
American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support
of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another
bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing
to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad
guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all
the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the
war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet
Union.
As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites
of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what
hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political
inclinations, I never paid it any attention.
A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream.
Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign,
their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed
last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now
with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their
personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material
to make any McCarthyite proud.*
[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled
him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the
magazine he co-founded?]
Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it
was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :
"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily
propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a
policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.
It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies
do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy
by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression
rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies,
the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.
They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors,
and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political
power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.
Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the
most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying
to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the
murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other
nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint
among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This
is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.
Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to
wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it
should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted
to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but
an excuse for warmongering since 1989.
Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The
Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the
Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."
I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering
with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient
stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic
and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a
weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by
mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious
ipso facto .
Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy
and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply
felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole
sex and reproductive moral prism.
Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of
the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and
spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.
The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They
seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore.
Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with
the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants
of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for
the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's
Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.
Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent
anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia
with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at
all times though!
This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least
come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African
dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own
a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.
Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative.
And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now
finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right
is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little
over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie
was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency
that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being
on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been
put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they
did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing.
The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie
terrorist tactics for decades.
file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer
inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.
@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of
us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.
Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.
Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of
all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon
us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack
of public awareness of it.
land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all.
Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the
illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with
the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare
world.
"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately
judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished
information."
Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that
our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to
hear.
George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference
Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped
Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100
million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found
Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation
in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised
they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far?
He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms
sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.
Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence
agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul
Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's
widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
... ... ...
Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show
on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on
political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."
... ... ...
A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of
power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political
opponent.
"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal.
"Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."
Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for
investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their
true target to be in communication.
If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a
candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so
explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.
... ... ...
The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate
scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere
existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about
the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is
currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified
information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.
Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence
agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul
Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's
widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
... ... ...
Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show
on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on
political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."
... ... ...
A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of
power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political
opponent.
"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal.
"Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."
Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for
investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their
true target to be in communication.
If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a
candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so
explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.
... ... ...
The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate
scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere
existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about
the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is
currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified
information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.
" pick their locks and force entry to their bedrooms in predawn mist as they did to Paul
Manafort. This Gestapo-style terror knocked the wind out of Trump's sails."
Wasn't the Gestapo known for at least knocking on the door in the middle of the night before
dragging their quarry to the building that no-one stops to watch? NKVD too, now that I think about
it. They only picked Manafort's lock as a professional courtesy; thousands of average Americans
have been awakened to their doors being smashed in, a couple flash-bangs tossed in, dogs being
shot, etc. As Trump might have tweeted before the Deep State gained control of him, "Sad!"
Bannon was right to some extent that there is no military solution to this the piece he was
missing was the qualifier, " for sane people who have a conscience."
The fact that we repeatedly use the starvation of millions of innocent civilians in undeclared
wars on their leaders shows the lack of conscience on the part of ours, because that route is
more disingenuous to our values than making outright war against their nations, albeit not by
much. I'm not qualified to render a diagnosis of insanity, but I think I have enough information
to inform my opinion.
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Listening to the president, one would almost think Trump was giving two different speeches, one rhetorical and one substantive. The rhetorical speech ( reportedly authored by Stephen Miller ) was the most stirring advocacy one could hope for of the rule of law and of the Westphalian principle of the sovereign state as the bedrock of the international order. The substantive speech, no doubt written by someone on the National Security Council staff, abrogates the very same Westphalian principle with the unlimited prerogatives of the planet's one government that reserves the right to violate or abolish the sovereignty of any other country – or to destroy that country altogether – for any reason political elites in Washington decide. ..."
"... With respect to North Korea, some people assume that because the consequences would be patently catastrophic the "military option" must be off the table and that all this war talk is just bluster. That assumption is dead wrong. The once unthinkable is not only thinkable, it is increasingly probable. As Trump said: "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea." This is exactly backwards. Threatening North Korea with total destruction doesn't equate to the defense of the US (forget about our faux ..."
"... With respect to Iran, the relevant passages of Trump's speech could as well have been drafted in the Israeli and Saudi foreign ministries – and perhaps they were. Paradoxically, such favoritism toward some countries and hatred for others is the exact opposite of the America First! principle on which Trump won the presidency. ..."
"... Not to belabor the obvious, at least as far as foreign policy goes, the would-be Swamp-drainer has lost and the Swamp has won. ..."
"... We can speculate as to why. Some say Trump was always a liar and conman and had no intention of keeping his promises. ..."
"... To be fair, Trump's populism was never based on consistent non-interventionism. In 2016 he promised more money for the Pentagon and vowed to be the most " militaristic " president ever. Still, he seemed to understand that wars of choice unrelated to vital national interests, like Bush's in Iraq and Obama's in Libya, were a waste of untold billions of dollars and produced only disasters. ..."
"... His acceptance of the Swamp's continuation of the war in Afghanistan was his first major stumble towards the dismal path of his predecessors. War against North Korea or Iran, or God forbid both, would wreck his presidency and his pledge to "Make America Great Again!" even more surely than Iraq ruined Bush's. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from the Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
In his
maiden speech to the United Nations General Assembly , President Donald Trump invoked the terms
"sovereign" and "sovereignty" 21 times. In a manner unimaginable coming from any other recent occupant
of the White House, the President committed the United States to the principle of national sovereignty
and to the truth that "the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition."
More, Trump rightly pointed out that these pertain not just to the US and the safeguarding of American
sovereignty but to all countries:
In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government's first
duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve
their rights, and to defend their values.
As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders
of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."
Then he took it all back.
Listening to the president, one would almost think Trump was giving two different speeches,
one rhetorical and one substantive. The rhetorical speech (
reportedly authored by Stephen Miller ) was the most stirring advocacy one could hope for of
the rule of law and of the Westphalian principle of the sovereign state as the bedrock of the international
order. The substantive speech, no doubt written by someone on the National Security Council staff,
abrogates the very same Westphalian principle with the unlimited prerogatives of the planet's one
government that reserves the right to violate or abolish the sovereignty of any other country – or
to destroy that country altogether – for any reason political elites in Washington decide.
Numerous commentators immediately rushed to declare that Trump had dialed back to George W. Bush's
2002 "
Axis of Evil " speech. (The phrase is attributed to then-speechwriter
David Frum ,
now a moving figure behind the "
Committee to Investigate Russia ," which in the
sage opinion of Rob Reiner and Morgan Freeman claims "we are at war" with Russia already.) Trump
has now laid down what amounts to declarations of war against both North Korea and Iran. On both
he has left himself very little room for maneuver, or for any compromise that would be regarded as
weakness or Obama-style "leading from behind." While hostilities against both countries may not be
imminent (though in the case of North Korea, they might be) we are, barring unforeseen circumstances,
now approaching the point of no return.
With respect to North Korea, some people assume that
because the consequences would be patently catastrophic the "military option" must be off the
table and that all this war talk is just bluster. That assumption is dead wrong. The once unthinkable
is not only thinkable, it is increasingly probable. As Trump said: "The United States has great strength
and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally
destroy North Korea." This is exactly backwards. Threatening North Korea with total destruction doesn't
equate to the defense of the US (forget about our faux allies South Korea and Japan, which
contribute nothing to our security), it positively increases the danger to our country and people.
The
Deep State would rather risk the lives of almost 30,000 American military personnel in Korea,
of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of South Koreans, and of even more millions in North
Korea – not to mention prodding Pyongyang to accelerate acquisition of a capability for a nuclear
strike on the United States itself – than pry its grip off of a single square meter of our forward
base against China on the northeast Asian mainland.
With respect to Iran, the relevant passages of Trump's speech could as well have been drafted
in the Israeli and Saudi foreign ministries – and perhaps they were. Paradoxically, such favoritism
toward some countries and hatred for others is the exact opposite of the America First! principle
on which Trump won the presidency. As stated in his
Farewell Address
by our first and greatest president (wait – are we still allowed to say that? George Washington
was a slave-owner!), a country that allows itself to be steered not by its own interests but the
interests of others negates it own freedom and becomes a slave to its foreign affections and antipathies:
The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some
degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient
to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes
each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to
be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
Not to belabor the obvious, at least as far as foreign policy goes, the would-be Swamp-drainer
has lost and the Swamp has won.
We can speculate as to why. Some say Trump was always a liar and conman and had no intention
of keeping his promises. (Let's see what he does on
the "Dreamers" and throwing away his wall on the Mexican border. As
Ann Coulter says , "If Trump doesn't get that wall built, and fast, his base will be done with
him and feed him to Robert Mueller.") Others say Trump meant what he said during the campaign but
now surrounded by generals and globalists that dominate his administration, and with populists in
the White House now about as common as
passenger pigeons ,
he's a virtual captive. If so, it's a captivity of his own making.
To be fair, Trump's populism was never based on consistent non-interventionism. In 2016 he
promised more money for the Pentagon and vowed to be the most "
militaristic " president
ever. Still, he seemed to understand that
wars of choice
unrelated to vital national interests, like Bush's in Iraq and Obama's in Libya, were a waste
of untold billions of dollars and produced only disasters.
His acceptance of the
Swamp's continuation of the war in Afghanistan was his first major stumble towards the dismal
path of his predecessors. War against North Korea or Iran, or God forbid both, would
wreck his presidency and his pledge to "Make America Great Again!" even more surely than Iraq
ruined Bush's.
Still unanswered: does Trump know that, does he care, and does he have the wherewithal to do anything
about it? At the moment, it doesn't look good.
"... Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. ..."
"... NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters . ..."
"... NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go. ..."
"HANGZHOU, China : The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being
rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a
harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel
house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster
rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the
last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced
little pressure over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only
when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will
be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic
C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy.
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo
chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking
to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the
voters will destroy his chances. Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's
Trojan horse .
NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another
Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean
supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction
years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences
for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran, may
be Kennedy would have survived. But his earlier political escapades were also built on something
that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more
time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are
done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and
a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception
that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not
allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's
Russia despite being his co conspirator .
Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say
it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success
. First Iraq war, if went bad from beginning, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again
who knows what media can deliver. They delivered Joe Liberman .
"... Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI
whether it warned Donald Trump's presidential campaign about alleged attempts by Russia to
infiltrate the campaign.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive
briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign
manager.
"If the FBI did provide a defensive briefing or similar warning to the campaign, then that
would raise important questions about how the Trump campaign responded," Grassley wrote in the
letter dated Sept. 20.
If the FBI did not alert the campaign, Grassley said, that would raise "serious questions
about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled
differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign."
The senator said that according to press reports, U.S. intelligence had raised similar
concerns with John McCain during the Republican senator's 2008 presidential campaign.
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US
into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe
90
For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the
Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new
classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and
reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.
The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a
year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or
the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media
and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any
sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the
issue?
The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA !
reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:
"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we
must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking
about nothing else for months.
One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this
cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a
clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have
lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."
"... Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House. ..."
Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of
the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 - and even sought information in the
days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced
in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days
of the Obama White House.
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.
His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater
but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.
But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National
Security Advisor McMaster.
I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker
punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.
His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater
but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.
But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National
Security Advisor McMaster.
I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker
punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like
John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria,
Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example
rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for
more war? Have they "won" Trump?
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
To what extent Natalia Veselnitskaya
represented Russian state and to what extent interests of certain Russian oligarchs is
unclear. The obvious guess is that she did not. She is an oligarchs lawyer. But she could pretend that he did.
Notable quotes:
"... On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed, but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.) ..."
"... Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it, expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine, which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans adopt Russian children. ..."
"... News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance. Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?" ..."
"... And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort, who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal about that. ..."
"... But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has been a nothingburger. ..."
Flipping the channel to U.S. cable news, the lead story is Paul Manafort's imminent indictment,
apparently for his business dealings. Presented as a BLOCKBUSTER, it's got all the talking heads
smelling blood in the water. Here, they hope, is the smoking gun. Their eyes are bright with hope,
if not for Trump's impeachment, for his forced embrace of continued confrontation with Moscow.
On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They
were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the
unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed,
but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails
to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done
that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie
Sanders.)
Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it,
expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned
by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine,
which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans
adopt Russian children.
"Russian Interference"
The meeting between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in Trump Tower in June 2016, including
Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Manafort, Rinat Akhmetshin and publicist Rob Goldstone appears to have
included three elements: withdrawal of sanctions under a Trump administration, restitution of the
adoption program (with which Veselnitskaya has indeed been involved) as one action in return, and
the issue which drew Don Jr. to the gathering: and possibly the promise of info on Hillary. So if
Don Jr. and Jared say it was about adoption they might be telling the partial truth.
Hadn't Junior been told that there were documents that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings
with Russia and would be very useful to your father," and hadn't he said "I love it"? It is just
possible that this meeting resulted in Russian hacking of the DNC and the leaking of the documents
by Wikileaks (although Julian Assange and colleague Craig Murray strongly deny this).
On July 22, Wikileaks released its first batch of DNC emails. Wasserman-Schultz and half a dozen
others had to resign, and DNC sincerely apologized to Sanders for Wasserman-Schultz's comment that
it would be "silly" to imagine a Sanders victory.
On July 27 Trump speaking to a news conference in Doral, Florida said this:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing
[from Clinton's emails] I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
On Nov. 7, Wikileaks released a second batch of documents, including a email written by Hillary's
own campaign chairman John Podesta in January, saying: "I'm down. Our team is all tactics and has
no idea of how to lift her up." Very embarrassing just before the election. But the provenance of
the leaked documents is in fact unclear, and contested.
This BLOCKBUSTER news about Manafort reportedly involves financial transactions. The idea may
be to trade leniency for financial wrongdoing for information on the alleged "collusion" between
the Trump campaign and Moscow. But what if there is none?
News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance.
Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from
June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out
of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had
been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?"
And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort,
who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole,
Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal
about that.
Why All the Fuss?
Why all this fuss about Manafort in Ukraine? Because he's accused of developing ties with Russians
while there, which is hardly surprising, considering that he's a mercenary opportunist and businessman,
and Russia and Ukraine have numerous historical, cultural, economic and business ties. Yanukovich's
party (Party of Regions) is described by the U.S. as "pro-Russian" although that is simplistic and
reflects ignorance of the ethnic mix in Ukraine and the relationship to both Russia and the EU. (Victoria
Nuland, Obama's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, promoted that view
and declared the U.S.'s support for "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations.")
Yanukovich could have introduced Manafort to lots of Russians. But that was all over in 2014 before
Trump announced his campaign.
We now know that Manafort came under investigation by the FBI soon after the U.S.-backed putsch
in February 2014 and is ongoing. But it didn't start as an investigation into Russian election meddling.
And it will very possibly not find any evidence for that. It may find, for example, an email in which
Manafort supports the withdrawal of the party plank in July 2015 advocating lethal arms to the current
government. (This is another of the very few "facts" cited establish "Russian interference." But
it seems to me a lot of Republicans don't want to provoke Russia in Russia's backyard. Since when
does mere reason constitute "collusion"?) But it would be a stretch to assume he's the key villain
interlocutor between "Russian operatives" and the Trump campaign.
But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign
may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term
is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir
Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has
been a nothingburger.
To what extent Natalia Veselnitskaya
represented Russian state and to what extent interests of certain Russian oligarchs is
unclear. The obvious guess is that she did not. She is an oligarchs lawyer. But she could pretend that he did.
Notable quotes:
"... On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed, but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.) ..."
"... Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it, expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine, which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans adopt Russian children. ..."
"... News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance. Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?" ..."
"... And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort, who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal about that. ..."
"... But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has been a nothingburger. ..."
Flipping the channel to U.S. cable news, the lead story is Paul Manafort's imminent indictment,
apparently for his business dealings. Presented as a BLOCKBUSTER, it's got all the talking heads
smelling blood in the water. Here, they hope, is the smoking gun. Their eyes are bright with hope,
if not for Trump's impeachment, for his forced embrace of continued confrontation with Moscow.
On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They
were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the
unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed,
but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails
to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done
that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie
Sanders.)
Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it,
expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned
by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine,
which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans
adopt Russian children.
"Russian Interference"
The meeting between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in Trump Tower in June 2016, including
Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Manafort, Rinat Akhmetshin and publicist Rob Goldstone appears to have
included three elements: withdrawal of sanctions under a Trump administration, restitution of the
adoption program (with which Veselnitskaya has indeed been involved) as one action in return, and
the issue which drew Don Jr. to the gathering: and possibly the promise of info on Hillary. So if
Don Jr. and Jared say it was about adoption they might be telling the partial truth.
Hadn't Junior been told that there were documents that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings
with Russia and would be very useful to your father," and hadn't he said "I love it"? It is just
possible that this meeting resulted in Russian hacking of the DNC and the leaking of the documents
by Wikileaks (although Julian Assange and colleague Craig Murray strongly deny this).
On July 22, Wikileaks released its first batch of DNC emails. Wasserman-Schultz and half a dozen
others had to resign, and DNC sincerely apologized to Sanders for Wasserman-Schultz's comment that
it would be "silly" to imagine a Sanders victory.
On July 27 Trump speaking to a news conference in Doral, Florida said this:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing
[from Clinton's emails] I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
On Nov. 7, Wikileaks released a second batch of documents, including a email written by Hillary's
own campaign chairman John Podesta in January, saying: "I'm down. Our team is all tactics and has
no idea of how to lift her up." Very embarrassing just before the election. But the provenance of
the leaked documents is in fact unclear, and contested.
This BLOCKBUSTER news about Manafort reportedly involves financial transactions. The idea may
be to trade leniency for financial wrongdoing for information on the alleged "collusion" between
the Trump campaign and Moscow. But what if there is none?
News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance.
Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from
June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out
of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had
been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?"
And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort,
who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole,
Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal
about that.
Why All the Fuss?
Why all this fuss about Manafort in Ukraine? Because he's accused of developing ties with Russians
while there, which is hardly surprising, considering that he's a mercenary opportunist and businessman,
and Russia and Ukraine have numerous historical, cultural, economic and business ties. Yanukovich's
party (Party of Regions) is described by the U.S. as "pro-Russian" although that is simplistic and
reflects ignorance of the ethnic mix in Ukraine and the relationship to both Russia and the EU. (Victoria
Nuland, Obama's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, promoted that view
and declared the U.S.'s support for "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations.")
Yanukovich could have introduced Manafort to lots of Russians. But that was all over in 2014 before
Trump announced his campaign.
We now know that Manafort came under investigation by the FBI soon after the U.S.-backed putsch
in February 2014 and is ongoing. But it didn't start as an investigation into Russian election meddling.
And it will very possibly not find any evidence for that. It may find, for example, an email in which
Manafort supports the withdrawal of the party plank in July 2015 advocating lethal arms to the current
government. (This is another of the very few "facts" cited establish "Russian interference." But
it seems to me a lot of Republicans don't want to provoke Russia in Russia's backyard. Since when
does mere reason constitute "collusion"?) But it would be a stretch to assume he's the key villain
interlocutor between "Russian operatives" and the Trump campaign.
But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign
may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term
is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir
Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has
been a nothingburger.
Should not NYT be investigated as for the source of information of this leak?
One of the requests is about a meeting Mr. Trump had in May with Russian officials in the Oval
Office the day after James B. Comey, the F.B. I director, was fired. That day, Mr. Trump met with
the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and the Russian ambassador to the United States,
Sergey I. Kislyak, along with other Russian officials. The New York Times reported that in the meeting
Mr. Trump said that firing Mr. Comey relieved "great pressure" on him.
"... The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years. ..."
"... The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination. ..."
"... And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe ..."
In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our
country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years
combined. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical
weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent
person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why
the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.
When I heard these words I felt embarrassed for Trump. First, it is absolutely pathetic that
Trump has to claim as his success the victories with the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians and
Hezbollah have achieved against the Wahabi-crazies of Daesh/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc, especially
since the latter are a pure creation of the US CIA!
The truth is that it was the Americans who
created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it
through all these years.
The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about
fighting this Wahabi abomination.
And now that a tiny Russian contingent has achieved infinitely
better results that all the power of the mighty CENTCOM backed by the Israeli and Saudi allies of
the US in the region, The Donald comes out and declares victory?!
Pathetic is not strong enough a
word to describe this mind-bogglingly counter-factual statement.
And then, just to make things
worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had
nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader
recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he
proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
"... Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. ..."
"... The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies. ..."
"... a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad ..."
"... It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price. ..."
"... Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law. ..."
"... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation. ..."
"... This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands: ..."
"... Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran . ..."
"... Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president." ..."
"... Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.) ..."
"... It is only way to sustain the empire. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won. ..."
"... The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune. ..."
"... I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment . ..."
"... Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly. ..."
"... Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things. ..."
"... It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read? ..."
"... Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate? ..."
"... Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa). ..."
"... As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell. ..."
Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist
foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).
The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies.
It is schooling
Trump on globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump was insufficiently supportive of
their desires and thus had to undergo reeducation:
When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often
cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts
-- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate
Trump was hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and indoctrinated by the glittering four-star
generals he admired since he was a kid:
The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers.
It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience
in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled
the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides
have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain
-- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad
Trump was sold the establishment policies he originally despised. No alternative view was presented
to him.
It is indisputable that the generals are
now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by
shaping
culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded"
reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers.
The military, through the NSA as well as through its
purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military
establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the
power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible
and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly
won, collecting its price.
Trump's success as the
"Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency,
Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media
campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment
insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta
which nominally follows the rule of law.
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three
military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn't.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military "needs" always rated more
important than domestic ones.
... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same
happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned
much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring.
They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they
turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.
The country has fallen to that temptation
even on social-economic issues:
In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the
commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.
The junta is
bigger than its three well known leaders:
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump
administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick
Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump
recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.
This is no longer a
Coup Waiting
to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything
of importance now
passes through
the Junta's hands:
[Chief of staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking process in which just he and one
other aide [...] will review all documents that cross the Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy
documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Staff who oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on
the outside [.. .] Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow
of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self
image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.
The Trump insurgency against the establishment was marked by a mostly informal information and
decision process. That has been
destroyed and replaced:
Worried that Trump would end existing US spending/policies (largely, still
geared to cold war priorities), the senior military staff running the Trump administration launched
a counter-insurgency against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information flow with social media/networks, the generals smashed
the insurgency's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Deprived of this connection,
Trump is now weathervaning to cater to the needs of the establishment ...
The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing to him certain alternatives.
The one that is most preferable to them will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no
alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.
Thus we get a
continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy
towards Iran.
Other countries noticed how the game has changed. The real decisions are made by the generals,
Trump is
ignored as a mere figurehead:
Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan,
Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US
Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president."
Climate change, its local catastrophes and the infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S.
will
further extend the military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.
Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further
increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas
of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.)
It is only way to sustain the empire.
It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker
of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without
a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.
Posted by b on September 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
Only good news: The mask has been torn off US elections. They simply don't matter. Waste of time
and money. US has become Saddam's Iraq, Sisi's Egypt, Mugabe's Zimbabwe etc....expect to see Trump
win 90% of vote in 2020....hahaha...
Hogwash - The SAA just crossed the Euphrates. If the neocons were really in control, WW3 would
start before dawn tomorrow. Otherwise, Assad will get his biggest oil field back from ISIS.
The Russians are hinting that the SDF isn't really fighting ISIS but just pretending to while
ISIS soldiers switch uniforms. If that's true, it means the neocons may still be in charge, but
what are they going to do about the Syrian Army blocking them now?
Interesting, and certainly a possible explanation of what's going on. Still, if the military is
running the show, why the growth of private mercenary businesses? (A new meaning for "corporate
warriors."). My own feeling, based on nothing except decades of experience working with the military,
is that the generals don't mind a few little wars, but they well know the risks of a big one.
For that reason, the military leadership seems to be trying to cool things down -- that the U.S.
didn't go to war with Iran, Russia, China or North Korea (yet) may be due to the influence of
the top brass.
b: It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him.
hmmm...I'm not sure there's any pressure at all on Trump. Since Kennedy was removed the president
has little real power and is mostly to provide the trappings of democracy and keep the proles
entertained. Over 100 years ago T. Roosevelt noticed the lack of presidential freedom to act --
the bully pulpit and all that.
One of the main reasons I was pleased to see Trump get elected was that he wanted to get us out
of Syria. Somewhat amazingly I'd say, that has pretty much happened.
Russia, Iran and China have shown themselves to be responsible players and have the strength
to back that up.
So, I think in reality the US military will be forced by facts on the ground, as well as a
weakening of their propaganda, to go along with Trump's original more accommodating posture.
It's probably inevitable that the military would rule in the twilight of US world dominance.
Back in the true USA#1 days it was different. A couple of President Truman quotes: "It's the
fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take
apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although
he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them
would be in jail."
The main problem with generals is that most (not all) of them got to where they are by sucking
up to higher authority, or "go along to get along." Then couple that with all the perks they get
including fine housing, enlisted servants and a fat $250K pension for full generals, and they
look at themselves in the mirror with all their fancy ribbons and medals and naturally adopt Harry
Truman's "gods in uniform" opinion of themselves, forgetting that they have become successful
in an isolated military milieu that favors appearance and disregards lack of accomplishment. And
the current crop of generals certainly lacks accomplishment.
"Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase."
If that were true, why is the historic American nation being replaced by mystery meats from
the global south? The Washington machine certainly produces oodles of propaganda, but it is virulently
opposed to ethnocentrism at home and abroad, because that might lead to groups with the solidarity
to stand up to a degenerate empire.
The indoctrination taking place here is militaristic globalism. And everyone is invited.
b said:"Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist
foreign policy."
Only by those who don't fully understand the TRUE American system, and those who dream of a
system that actually provides " truth, liberty and justice for all".
The better liar won the "election".
The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day
I think the US is weak militarily for two deep and fundamental reasons, both of which have US
politicians to blame.
First, the US has not had able generals and admirals since WWII because politicians today[especially
since 9/11] cannot take criticism. Therefore men like MacArthur and Kimmel, who would tell them
a war can't be won like that or this strategy is a bad idea, no longer get the promotions. Yes-men
get promoted over more able men.
Second, this promotion of yes-men allows politicians to take over the planning of a war. Whereas
MacArthur would have shut the door on the neo-cons and told them he'll let him know when his plan
is ready, today politicians use political strategy to try and defeat the war strategy of an opponent.
For example, Rumsfeld should have been told that if he wanted to steal Iraq he'd need half a million
men - but the generals tried to do the impossible and steal Iraq with a third that number because
more was politically sensitive.
If politicians are going to have a war, leave it to able generals to plan it. Or lose.
There's no saving the Unipolar attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance -- not even nuclear
war -- and I think the generals and their minders actually know this, although they seem to be
keeping up appearances. Escobar's latest from last Friday details why this is so,
http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-turns-art-deal-upside/
Even the Brazilian regime change project is becoming a loser as the massive corruption scandal
is about to devour the neocon favorite Temer, while Lula is rising like the Phoenix. The latest
leak scandal over the meeting between Rohrabacher and Kelly regarding Russiagate and the status
of Julian Assange reveals more than the leak itself,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47818.htm
Always follow the money. There is only so far a $1 will go. Shrinkflation. The USD, as reserve
currency, allowed the US to fund wars, everyday essentials and live high on the hog at the expense
of the rest of the world. This exceptional privilege is coming to an end.
When the US declared war; [excluded Iran from use of SWIFT/ the USD] that was the shot heard
far and wide. Putin and Xi noted, we could be next and put in place CHIPS.
Lately, Russia and then China has been threatened with sanctions; latest folly of Mnuchin,
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The petro-Yuan Exchange for gold was announced and less than 005%
of Americans realize the impact of bypassing the USD.
USA has met its comeuppance. Russia and China need not fire a shot. Prosperity of the exceptional
ones is an illusion built on hundreds of trillions of debt. We are kept diverted from de-dollarization
by the focus on unschooled Trump. Eight+ months after the selection, it's "Russiagate" – Putin
did it; are angels male or female? What happened?
Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive
policy towards Iran.
As a candidate way before any junta was installed, Trump always vowed to rip up the Iran nuclear
deal. Now why on earth would North Korea trust that any nuclear agreement it made with the US
would not similarly be ripped up and shredded a couple years down the road?
If the handling of "local catastrophes" such as Harvey and Irma are any indication of the power
of this junta, then I am not very much worried. The FEMA folks, Red Cross and many others showed
their ineffectiveness in spades here in Houston. What's even more revealing is just how quickly
they dashed out of here to remain in the news when Irma hit Florida.
I met two ATF guys driving down here after Harvey - and they had no idea why they were coming
here. Couldn't articulate a thing to me except to say, repeatedly, "We are ATF and coming to assist."
They had ZERO specifics on what they were going to do to help anyone. But they were very much
enjoying wearing their ATF t-shirts and sporting their pistols on hip. But it's Texas, and that
just made me smile and shake my head. Made me realize that whatever happens here in America, DC
and the central government are so incredibly out of touch and living "in the bubble" that they
are of very limited use for locals (those outside the East Coast) in any way.
The Feds plan for national, not local catastrophes - and their primary issue is COG, period.
They are much more concerned about maintaining government and their own little fiefdoms than in
assisting people far away from the DC/NYC corridor.
Further, the math just doesn't work for the junta doing much more than controlling foreign
policy (who we next attack) - to try that same thing across America would result in rapid expulsion
and failure, as we outnumber them most significantly.
When the pain they cause becomes enough, then things will change. Unfortunately, it seems that
change via the national elections has now been abrogated. Something else is likely to ensue, eventually.
I just don't understand how people can fall for the line that "nationalism" somehow equates to
an undesirable movement akin to the rise of nazism. The media has been blitzing this as of late
and rallying cries around the antifa demonstrations have been taking this buzzword and running
with it, equating proponents of it to racist KKK members in some silly way or another. Even here,
b, you seem to be eating right out of the hands of these pagemasters who dictate what words mean.
I'm sorry, but there is a glaring doublestandard when you praise the policy of say Venezuela which
"nationalized" their oil industry and condemn all of us Americans who are begging to disassociate
from global mechanisms which are crippling fair-spending of tax dollars here in the state. It
is fair to assume that military junta historically use the energy of nationalism's lexicon to
promote their agenda, but in this case, as you point out, the junta and the status quo of globalism's
iron hand seem to fit together nicely. I read that as nationalism never even taking flight here.
I get your trepidation with this terminology considering the history of your country, but America
IS different and we deserve an attempt to put America first...shocking, I know.
B fell pray of partisan propaganda, Trump - the coup d'etat enabler DNC MANTRA.. So please inform
me when generals were not in executive charge of the US government. On behave of oligarchic ruling
elite ? Where were those civilian rulers during documented 250 conflicts or war US was engaged
during 228 years of existence
The first president was a general and since then US generals executed
basic US imperial economic model of aggression and exploitation, military land grab from Indians
and Mexicans to suppression of workers strikes by shelling their families at home in US as well
in its conquered colonies in CA and Caribbean we have proof thanks to Gen. Butler.
It was a Gen. Eisenhower who warned us the junta refused to disarm after WWII and constitutes
coear and present danger to even a facade of republican order.
Anybody who believe that imperial US is run by civilians is SIMPLY gullible since no emporia
were ever run by civilians by definition. Roman Empire was run over last 200 year explicitly by
generals COMMANDING armies of foreign mercenaries like US today in NATO and ASEAN .
What has changed is that veil of deceit has failed and with Trump those warmongering cockroaches
came out of WH woodwork to see a light and tookbopenly control f what they already controlled
clandestinely.
16
If you think US is different to nazi it might be worth reading saker's piece on it. If you think
US nationalism is any different to Nazi Germany in aggression then think again. The US population,
and much of the so called west, is swamped in propaganda while the US attacks country after country.
But once again, many here think that Europe is already one big vassal state of the global/US
empire. So if anything, we are all already under the jack boot of empire. To dislodge one piece
(US), indeed, the central piece, seems to me that the world would be in recovery mode from "the
global reich." Please correct if I'm wrong, but your logic does not compute. Furthermore, I don't
think a reeling US economy and population, freshly liberated, is going to be convinced any time
soon to wage wars abroad for precious metals and the like. "Helping" the world would probably
take a back seat.
...
"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was,
but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be
in jail."
...
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5
And, despite the fact that Trump rubbed shoulders with dozens of these wannabe Generals at
Military Academy, and was exposed to the same claptrap, it seems safe to assume that he realised
that a Life spent in the US Military would be pointless, unimaginative and frustrating.
To be fair he did put an end to Timber Sycamore. The deep state wouldn't have pushed so hard
on the Russian angle if there weren't a real upheaval. IMO, it went beyond simply covering for
the DNC leaks. The whole establishment dog piled the Russian angle. It was for a time the principal
means of disrupting Trump's agenda. I think Trump's token strike on the Syrian airbase is evidence
of all of this. It was the absolute minimum he could have done in the face of a tidal wave of
internal war pressures. And, they certainly could have gotten away with way more of the "trump
is a Nazi angle," but they appear to have stopped after they got Bannon out.
Prescribing Trump, a monster though he is, as being at least the lesser war candidate holds
IMO. What his presidency has illuminated above all else is the wild degree to which US is first
and foremost of war. It is perhaps the most ubiquitous force that charges the US system.
That all said, we are going to find out real soon what the military is after. The SDF and SAA
meeting in Deir Ezor is going to tell us a lot. This is perhaps their last chance at balkanization
of Syria. A glimmer of hope still resides however in the supposed Pentagon revolt that took place
over Obama's red line in the sand, as reported by Sy Hersh and others. As evil as the US military
is, they dont seem to actually want war with Russia, unlike the intelligence complex. I, personally,
am still hopeful at least about Syria.
The Russian leader expressed confidence that "one of the key components of our self-consciousness,
one of the values and ideas is patriotism." Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet
Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism
is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his
words.
Or more historical: "Patriotism" was coined in Europe by the French revolution, forming a common
state of citizens open to all who can identify with common values and culture. But
American
Patriots came before that and that is probably where the French got the word.
As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.
"Nationalism" was a 19th century reaction to the export of the French revolution when European
kingdoms tried a legitimization of borders based on language and genetics. It was all war from
there to the Second World War and Auschwitz. If you want to sink the US in an internal Civil War
try nationalism.
I think there is some hyperventilating here. Was Trump 'turned'? Was his administration
'taken over' or was he always a figurehead? I decided several months ago that it was the latter:
well, the system cannot "win"... dialectics... every steps it takes to control and secure "things",
brings it closer to its end, and this, inevitably. no one wins, ever. no one looses even. the
only way to fight and defeat evil is a decisive progress in goodness, to ignore it... the reality
on the ground allows us to think that way, to set up concerts in the ruins, for good. thank you
russia (as for the us military, they need 5 or 6 years to just cath up with last year's stand...
but they still can agitate their little arms, so they do).
Location, location, location
I am in shock and awe of our Pentagon (and CIA)'s ability to market themselves. I am convinced
that this is their core area of competency as I read the slick consultant generated talking points
on how $600B equals a dilapidated military instead of one that needs a purge. If we really have
a readiness problem, heads should roll before they get more money but instead we cry for the incompetents.
The vaunted sea lanes and free trade
I used for fall for this nonsensical argument, that we needed 20 carrier groups to patrol the
oceans to ensure free trade. Really? All we need is an international system of Coast Guards augmented
by a few missile boats if there are some countries that don't have the budget for a coast guard
to prevent piracy. We don't need aircraft carriers for that. Why do we assume that we need 24x7
aircraft coverage in the Pacific, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean? I have a vague memory of the
80's where it was a big deal that we 'sent our fleet' to the Mediterranean for some occasions.
It wasn't assumed that we had a task force parked there 100% of the time.
I don't see why we can't get by with 6 or at most 8 carrier groups with the understanding that
we would never deploy more than 2 for special occasions so that they can rotate assignments.
"The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign
waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one)"
The USA was on the winning side for the Boxer Rebellion, the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection,
and a lot of other counter-insurgency operations. Basic military history. Just wanted to mention
that to set the correct tone, because your blog post started out factually incorrect and carried
on that way until the end.
Basic reasoning test, b:
i) Do you think Trump has been defeated by 'the US military', or ii) do you think a small number
of senior military men have thwarted Trump? Because the two are very different things.
I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the
US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden
to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and
destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations
because they were flunkies to the establishment .
Do you think Trump is a weak-minded cretin? Because that's what your theory requires. That
the guy can't remember his oft-repeated positions and statements after some briefings and a few
months. I say that nobody loses their wits that fast, and nobody does a 180 on so many core policies
without knowing that they're doing it.
Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say
he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle
after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration,
or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known
for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president.
It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly.
Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers
stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise
missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided
to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided
to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly
a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.)
Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign
an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He
decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked
the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He
decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all
of those things.
"It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC."
Yeah, nah. Pretty sure that's still the Wall St lobby, the Israel lobby, the CFR and the usual
mob. Generals are just hired thugs, as Smedley Butler put it. Or as Kissinger put it, the US military
is made up of "Military men" who "are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns."
What you've done, b, is to pull together some half-formed thoughts and mashed them all together.
It sounds badass as a righteously indignant blog post, and I bet the Huffpost crowd would love
it – but it fails as logic.
Nice play of semantics. But it still sounds like "patriotism" is a nice euphemism for nationalism.
Why else would Putin be the scourge of the west? Reminds me too of how Putin played nice all through
the Syrian War calling the US their "partner." Another euphemism. Seems like Putin likes to sound
like the better man (and he is) but part of his strategy has always been to underplay his hand
in the mix.
New carriers cost about $12B each, plus the cost of the 5,000 crew-members
and aircraft, plus the cost of the accompanying fleet that goes with every carrier. Carriers have
been mainly used in the last decade in the Gulf area to launch aircraft to bomb third world countries.
Most carriers are in port most of the time because they require a lot of maintenance, which adds
a lot more to expense. They are also used to sail near enemy countries, Washington believing that
they are useful to scare third world countries into thinking that they may be bombed, which might
make some sense except the results are questionable. As you indicate, the main threat to world
shipping is piracy for which carrier fleets are useless. The good thing about having a carrier
in the Persian Gulf much of the time is that it ensures that Iran would not be attacked; it would
be a sitting duck.
The current location of the eleven US carriers is below taken from
here . There is a new addition
to the fleet, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.
1 - Persian Gulf
1 - hurricane duty
1 - off Carolina coast
1- off Japan coast
7 - port
There are generals and then there are generals... Just which ones are taking over? The Neo-con
backed guys? The Pro-pentagon guys? The CIA/JSOC guys? The Black Ops Guys? or the Black on Black
Ops guys? The reason I ask is that at one time they were all fighting each other in N.Syria.
It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or
combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping,
information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained
while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems
to have broken even. Is this a fair read?
If so... I think it is overall a good thing (the beso of an bunch of bad) because the Pentagon
have shown themselves to be a lot more sane when it comes to creating conflict zones. They tend
to be less covert, a lot more overt and a lot less likely to forment war for the sake of some
corporation or political subset of the ruling elite.
#29
You're wrong. It's obvious who's in charge in Washington currently. There is no doubt that, politically
speaking, the insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign
waged by the U.S. military. Generals Mattis, McMaster and Kelly are paramount in the new administration.
Mattis has been given decision power on war, which Trump had promised to curtail.
McMaster, with no diplomatic experience, is national security and Kelly manages Trump's office.
The whole administration has taken a new tack with these generals and their military cohorts
-- they do no stand alone, they are part of an institution -- managing US foreign policy. Concomitant
to this are other factors including the cut in the State Department budget, the appointment of
neophyte and hawkish Haley at the UN and Trump's romance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Politics is always complex and messy and no one ever "rules" in the way being assumed. The military
have always had a big say - how else did they get such a huge budget for years on end? CIA have
always played a big part, likewise FBI, NSA, Wall St., CFR, Fed, IMF and so on. Three, maybe six
, Generals now have a bigger influence. Bannon has gone, so less influence for the deplorables.
That is only a subtle change in the big scheme of things.
This is the just the death throes of an empire that is meeting the Limits to Growth. Expect
MUCH MUCH worse to come. I think it will be SO horrible, many people will take the suicide option.
Obviously any 1000 or so word article is going to woefully simplified compared to the decades
of historical and political research that will dissect the Trump presidency in the finest detail,
I will say that this article has one glaring flaw that significantly lessens its value. Trump
has rolled over for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in Washington. There really is nothing special about
the military's ease with which they captured and neutered Trump.
I don't think there is a single
area of his campaign platform that he has given up on or flip-flopped on. I don't think there
is any other president who has been a comparable ACROSS THE BOARD FAILURE like Trump.
No one has ever been surprised that the wacky, inane, or divorced from reality promises presidents
made to get themselves elected never were followed through on. But every single president before
Trump at the very least had a core set of priorities they immediately set in motion.
The failure of the Trump presidency should for once and for all put to rest the silly and juvinille
dream of the lone super man heading off to Washington to FINALLY TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS and show
those sleazy career politicians who things are done in the real world.
Trump walked into the White House with absolutely no governing apparatus ready to go on day
one like every other presidential candidate has in the past.
Presidential candidates spend decades building up a vast network of people ready to hit the
ground running and know how Washington works from the moment the election is over.
One has to wonder if Trump really ever expected to win. Or just has a complete lack of interest
in the massive network o loyal and knowledgeable people needed to setup a brand new presidential
administration.
And there is no check on how badly the Trump administration can fail. His base appears to be
currled up in fetal position on Breitbart collectively chanting 'this is not happening, this is
not happening.'
I don't think I've ever felt more joy than seeing that ABSOLUTE FILTH Hillary Clinton get here
murderous and vile ass get handed to her by a TV personality.
Never in my dreams did I think Trump wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING.
So Trump fans, keep posting those MEMES and WINNING --
b's analysis rings true. The establishment has reined in Donald Trump. On their return from Florida,
it appeared that Melania Trump is well aware of the history of the House of Bourbon. One does
not become a Four-star General in the establishment today without an instinctive understanding
of the needs of the organ grinder. The end stage of an Empire is everybody for themselves. The
open source insurrection is over until it isn't anymore. Periodic combat takeoffs from Joint Base
Andrews are not reassuring. The desire to stay alive is the only brake on the rush to a nuclear
war with North Korea or the heating up of the Cold War with Russia.
A great follow-up article to an UNZ article early this year which stated:
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all
political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction.
In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment,
Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within
both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush
dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the
corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
I respectfully disagree with everyone. There is nobody in charge in Washington DC and hasn't
been for a long time.
There are psychopathic oligarchs, warlords, fiefdoms and secret cabals milking their power
and authority for a variety of self-serving interests with varying degrees of success and failure.
The entire government has mutated to an arena where the above powers spar for more control and
more money day after day. There is no real oversight. It's too complex and secretive for any one
person or group to be 'in charge'.
The announcer is not 'in charge'. He's just the announcer, nothing more. And the little people
are just spectators, nothing more.
Couldn't agree more re: Limits to Growth. And no prizes for guessing which major
economies have gone about insulating themselves against the pitfalls of cowboy economics... nothing
was fixed, repaired, refitted or replaced after 2008...crazy that any chance of sensible, sustainable
capitalism in the west might be lost to the cannibals need of rampant consumerism. I'll side with
the nations that keep an interest in public banking systems rather than the one's that encourage
it citizens ro eat the face off one another.
It's not all dark though, The Tale of The Don is really a romantic one... Of the wild west
never ending... Of the railroad tycoons that never really died.
Jackrabbit gets more right with every passing day... there is no such thing as an outsider
the moment you win.
@ 38
Yes, the power elite's military faction. Not: "I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and
their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent
themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks. . ."
Outsiders don't appreciate the power of the strengthening military-industrial complex that
Eisenhower cautioned about in his farewell address.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer
risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone
more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new
in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt
in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our
toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty
may prosper together.
from "The Hill": Overnight Defense: Senate passes $700B defense bill | 3,000 US troops heading
to Afghanistan | Two more Navy officials fired over ship collisions
A Chinese fire drill best describes what passes for the U.S.'s present level of policy. Most of
the world watches; aghast at the spectacle, while cowering with fear at the hubris...
But other commenters have also been critical, though less colorful.
@Madmen
Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power
elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you
think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate?
Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment
candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa).
As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.
Agreed. I had no problem with the substance, in fact I like the fact that there are diverse
opinions here and I learn a lot from the discussions. I just didn't need the gratuitous insults
to b given how much effort he puts in here.
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that
the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have
political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose
the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is
present
Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA
is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new
powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent
that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which
opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit
and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. ..."
"... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
"... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
"... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
"... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
"... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
"... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
"... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
"... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
"... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
"... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
"... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
"... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
"... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
"... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
"... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
"... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
"... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
"... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
"... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
"... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
"... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
"... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled
The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire
Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking
at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not
happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen
if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:
Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total,
control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton
they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The
Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "
crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities"
(from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their
bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover
his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight
to the very last one.
What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and
their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His
first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and
the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff
as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous
Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always
"Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilŕ !
Less than a month ago
I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof
was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President
Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get
rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and
General Flynn had to
offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the
way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world.
That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy
. ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that
he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian
ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House,
he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood
doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each
blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still
had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us
all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed
him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It
took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be .
Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they
will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst
enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It's over, folks, the deep state has won.
I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:
In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables")
the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections,
by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first,
that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which
rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA
has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their
enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the
Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.
I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.
The symptoms of the agony
Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now
only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised
"fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines,
this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during
my recent interview
with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically
stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form
of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor,
or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after
being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts'
first and
second warnings about this dynamic)
Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely
outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the
transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .
I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove
Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look
at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.
The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three
very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:
... ... ...
Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to
destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the
planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there
go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the
US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power
courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly
a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a "
new Hitler " (
as is Putin , of course!).
And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things
in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence
agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where
we live.
Dangerous international consequences
This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is
really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership.
No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but
a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles)
but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are
not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present
very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population
of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added
problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.
[Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake
all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane
and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if
I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or,
which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion
that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families
and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about
Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems,
DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the
Keihanshin region encompassing
Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the
Hanshin Industrial
Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated
(37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which
would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but
a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of
international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans
what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis
for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against
Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese
landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to
the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in
South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by
missiles!The
South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese,
they are officially
placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!).
So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible
indeed, nukes or no nukes]
What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results
in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous
and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally
losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:
A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly
what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they
say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world
are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things
worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.
Dangerous domestic consequences
First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United
States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of
Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official
media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book
here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports
the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet
an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the
home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load
of bull.
Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the
reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small
number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service
the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the
middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal
wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically
working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every
American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays,
a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving,
but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet
because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe,
by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar
Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.
Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when
so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration
of war.
And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent,
of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes
pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon.
GoDaddy
and
Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending
the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops
cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the
Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe
they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?
Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you
are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is
Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White
males better run for cover
Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump
and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake.
First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they
are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons
and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned
above which now threatens the entire international system.
Us and Them
What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it
is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi
monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social,
the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades,
the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States.
In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent')
US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run
an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most
incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office.
As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive
but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more.
The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in
horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense,
political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could
happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.
The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international
financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve
currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including
Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world
that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal.
As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger
one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear
arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different
ways.
So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of
the AngloZionist Empire?
This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the
incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically
collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially
devastating consequences for everybody.
This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the
American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has
somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness,
infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and
at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization:
how did we ever let things get that far?!
And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?
I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he
would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons
are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage
a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US.
Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the
Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically),
the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries
and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle
ways!
So what's next?
Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office,
either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him
insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even
be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either.
After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug
of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition
or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.
The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found
everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains
to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.
Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional
or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from
something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade
Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic
failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real
risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the
US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the
Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then
this was all quickly forgotten ).
There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind
the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means
that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly
break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is
their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they
will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder
when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.
The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and
strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the
main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen
shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious
allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their
lives. Also Imran Awan
story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case?
They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about
Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "
The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian
Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking
theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final
analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is
to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections
or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who
took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took
the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check
out this clip from the report:
Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a
non-state player.
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that
you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American
people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult
life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal
safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's
right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would
deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the
Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia
and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't
involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks
with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near
American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was
given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S.
presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they
must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC,
the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."
(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide
Clinton emails", Daily Mail)
Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible
witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish
whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already
done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year
now.
But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI
has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's
like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?
Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed
political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump?
How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator
called "The crime of the century"?
Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:
"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back
to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the
ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent
Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is
that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.
But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that
connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists.
Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence
that Russia hacked the DNC servers?
Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA
and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?
The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why
else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.
According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that
Russia was involved.
Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and
a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?
We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case.
That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers
so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from
the report:
"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC
server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only
picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."
( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)
Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes
beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to
you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're
blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door,
the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and
that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the
obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as
soon as I get the chance."
Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?
Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene,
and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that
in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential
treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked
by Russia?
The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within
their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can
trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious
doubt on their conclusions?
It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to
"stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are
all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
Here's another interesting clip from the report:
"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged
email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and
May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. –
That information has never been disclosed."
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing,
no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?
You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture,
not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr
and the goofy Russian lawyer?
Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations
of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit
financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!
What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia
to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year
of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.
A few words about the ICA Report
Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to
provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The
media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment
and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.
Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated
in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director
hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome.
Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention
was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global
rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical
disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well
as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney
because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'
Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors
openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof"
of anything?
Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best
when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by
the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually
actively manipulate the election process."
Like we said, it's all baloney.
Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations.
Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016.
The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance."
In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they
were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence
that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers
were hacked from Romania.)
The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:
"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not
by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside
job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last
Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)
Bingo.
Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces
and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This
is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal
the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.
In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations
stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate
Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding Ł40,000 in damages and the High
Court has approved over Ł100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become
liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my
defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and
blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with
bankruptcy.
Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning
that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs,
when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in
Britain for this very reason.
The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics
featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the
rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media
of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member
of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy
are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...
The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part
in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis
of America's finest.
Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is
highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations
and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So
this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."
People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary
Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a
place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person
only a few months earlier.
The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand
down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media
are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE
the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters
can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear
and greed.
Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media
keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who
consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration
of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.
Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more
fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.
They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and
more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's
Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting
on a table in front of their eyes.
Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it
and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole
cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund
the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government
officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening,
as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.
We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust,
and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside
as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.
View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.
It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based,
and it has been working.
All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity
to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit
my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their
grip.
I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched
a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed
to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which
is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.
In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists
and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly
either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front
of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries
to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that
is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it
was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said
Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and
how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The
clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able
to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to
vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission
to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."
Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY
machines etc.)
@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this
article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker
walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because
that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed
it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you
come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind
the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.
That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.
At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed
to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.
Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government
being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound
like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.
It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps
digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed
investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly,
both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and
ISIS.
We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic
immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its
industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the
ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international
shipping containers.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come
from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the
hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second,
it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of
proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden
of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the
American
public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue
now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv?
But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have
given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares
it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.
I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is,
but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich
(?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's
skivvies.
@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell
it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth
Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the
DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's
not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof"
only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof
submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you
know.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.
In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word
'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system,
simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your
man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution
has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's
semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions
Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and
rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's
murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's
hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to
Wikileaks whatsoever.
And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now
facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations
against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but
then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray
for cooperating with Wikileaks.
Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from
the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial
material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest
online controversy he helped stoke.
Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms
confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of
his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...] But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration"
and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.
"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."
He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.
"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because
I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream
rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.
"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,"
Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."
People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many
months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity
from "brain dead" Trump supporters.
@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole
story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington
gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.
We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary
Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then,
instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn
the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence,
squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence
actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?
Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt
the organization that's betrayed him.
As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to
me a pile of horse dung.
Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising
the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?
This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other
deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of
this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw
any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically
insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies,
that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!
@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of
proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set
aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution
although your use of the wňrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).
Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained
of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing
which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible
avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed
an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really
complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically)
rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend
properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.
Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available
to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if
the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.
Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide
evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.
Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted
real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or
has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?
I am intrigued by the Ł100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural
innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified
.. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only Ł40,000!
Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site
so the First Amendment should look after us.
The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found
by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the
novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships?
What facts?
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ˝ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT
agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance.
pl
**************
"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after
a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and
economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility.
"I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people,"
Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the
past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your
help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear
display Wednesday as protests
broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads
painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want.
Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken
a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.
There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.
1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues
himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.
IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's
legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.
A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the
obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than
expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to
survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline
Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic
alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to
alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get
what he wants and needs?
2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in
achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an
unmitigated disaster. pl
I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career,
to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals
when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end,
and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That,
plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor,
although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make
for a bad front man.
I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership
because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for
censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other
Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of
spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their
self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have
carried real political bite in the long term.
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own
Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.
As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after
their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway
within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious
challengers.
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got
an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the
country.
They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some
in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on
how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.
Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe.
I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are
Styrofoam take-out containers.
There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our
president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the
Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.
I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one
would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.
Seeing the winner of his first
presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than
the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting
that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the
California universities reported that.
The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated
disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of
another country ahead of the USA...
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or
liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic
establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a
corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the
house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed
queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him
aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a
wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump
into the whitehouse.
It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the
show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be
their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the
air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?
It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly,
so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up
anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this
juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those
guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....
"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired
of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said
in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent
paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal
income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while
the very rich become much richer."
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of
working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To
the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will
vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working
together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set
for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of
this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon
Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the
American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world
has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.
In First 2 Months in Office – Trump Reduces Debt by $100 Billion – Obama
Increased Debt by $400 Billion – Half a Trillion Dollar Difference!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/355719/
Obama left the federal government approximately $9,400,000,000,000 deeper in debt than it was
when he took office eight years ago, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury.
The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $76,000 for every person in the
United States who had a full-time job in December, 2016. That debt is far more debt than was
accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the
$4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush
served as president.
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT
agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance.
pl
**************
"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after
a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and
economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility.
"I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people,"
Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the
past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your
help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear
display Wednesday as protests
broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads
painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want.
Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken
a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.
There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.
1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues
himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.
IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's
legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.
A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the
obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than
expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to
survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline
Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic
alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to
alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get
what he wants and needs?
2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in
achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an
unmitigated disaster. pl
I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career,
to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals
when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end,
and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That,
plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor,
although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make
for a bad front man.
I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership
because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for
censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other
Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of
spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their
self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have
carried real political bite in the long term.
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own
Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.
As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after
their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway
within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious
challengers.
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got
an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the
country.
They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some
in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on
how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.
Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe.
I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are
Styrofoam take-out containers.
There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our
president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the
Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.
I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one
would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.
Seeing the winner of his first
presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than
the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting
that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the
California universities reported that.
The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated
disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of
another country ahead of the USA...
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or
liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic
establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a
corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the
house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed
queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him
aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a
wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump
into the whitehouse.
It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the
show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be
their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the
air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?
It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly,
so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up
anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this
juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those
guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....
"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired
of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said
in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent
paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal
income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while
the very rich become much richer."
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of
working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To
the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will
vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working
together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set
for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of
this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon
Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the
American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world
has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.
During his final moments in the Oval
Office, President Barack Obama folded into thirds a handwritten letter to Donald Trump, slid it
into an envelope, and in neat capital letters addressed it to "Mr. President."
Now, the contents of that letter -- the last direct communication between the 44th and 45th
presidents -- have emerged for the first time after CNN obtained a copy.
None of the commenters understand that CIA (which is more of Wall Street agency then
state agency) has also reasons to interfere in elections. And Russian interference can be a
very convenient smoke screen. JFK assassination proved this long ago. Remember Oswald
(who probably was of CIA payroll) Russian trace.
Notable quotes:
"... When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process, nothing but crickets! Why is that? ..."
"... That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to the voters. I don't expect a change. ..."
"... Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only! ..."
"... Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to swift-boating. ..."
In Oregon, we have vote by mail for all elections. A ballot arrives in the mail weeks
before the election and you have plenty of time to research the issues and candidates if you
haven't already. You can return your ballot by US mail or at the local library or voting
office. No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for
ballots. Not sure why the other states don't adopt this method...oh, wait, maybe I do.
angfil, Arizona 1 day ago
With all of the voting problems in federal elections, why aren't federal elections
conducted by the feds?Maybe that would help to keep voting fair. Or is that too much to
expect from the feds? Especially in the present circumstances.
Jean, Montclair, VA 1 day ago
1. I work elections, have for years, and I implore every citizen to confirm their
registration before every election.
Having someone mysteriously disappear from the rolls is upsetting for all of us involved in
the process--but especially for the spurned voter.
2. If spurned, vote provisionally when offered.
3. Do not rely on the DMV for address changes or registration. ALWAYS confirm that you are
properly registered before each election.
medianone, usa 1 day ago
If this isn't a clarion call for suspending e-voting and returning to paper only balloting
until a new cyber secure platform is designed and implemented, I don't know what is.
The security firewall across thousands of local precincts is porous and susceptible to
foreign state actors, or domestic hackers operating at levels light years ahead of them.
When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how
large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to
securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process,
nothing but crickets! Why is that?
Republicans show zero interest in securing our elections. Maybe the Democrats should make
this a top priority in the upcoming budget battles next month. Dollar for dollar parity
spending on a new secure voting system to match against Trump's border wall project.
It would do more to safeguard American democracy than a few miles of fence.
Doug Karo, Durham, NH 23 hours ago
The excuse of not knowing how to conduct a fair and effective election no longer is worth
much. We know how to conduct much fairer and effective elections and it is not that hard.
That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible
for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to
the voters. I don't expect a change.
Zoned, NC 23 hours ago
I have decided to change my party affiliation to Independent as a safeguard against
partisan political chicanery.
Even with mail in ballots and a paper trail, there is a point at which votes are counted
by a machine that can be tampered with. That is why we need a new Congress in the next
election that will make the popular vote and federal safeguards part of their platform and
follow through.
It is an embarrassment in front of the world that our country's judiciary allows
gerrymandering and our votes are tampered with. Who are we to monitor third world country
elections when our own election are no better?
Lisa, Canada 20 hours ago
Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only!
Option one: Walk (or drive) to the voting booth located in your neighborhood's voting
office.
Option two: Vote by postal mail for all elections. You can return your ballot by US mail or
at the local library or voting office.
No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for ballots.
Simple and more difficult to hack that way!
Tell your State's constituency to only use or adopt these methods.
No e-voting anymore.
Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to
swift-boating.
Who's chiefly responsible for this sorry state? Four culprits are:
Our two-party system. It breeds polarization, disgust, cynicism, apathy.
The media -- namely, it's superficiality. "Horse race" coverage focuses on campaigning.
Why policy matters gets ignored.
The length of our national campaigns. They should take three months, start to
finish.
Us (the vast majority of us). We like the superficiality, the mess, the stupidity.
Let's admit it.
The presidential election is not the only thing that matters in election integrity. We
vote for governors, senators and representatives, both state and federal as well as local
officials. If hacking is systematically reducing some peoples' ability to vote, by
interfering with registration rolls, giving false information about polling places or
altering the counts even in a small way, like 1 or 2 per cent, the effect on our government
would be enormous. It's not all and only about Trump.
We better get control over this problem, and make no mistake it is a problem, and we
better do it before the next election.
Interference in the management of valid voter roles, weak security of the ballot, and
gerrymandering are perhaps the biggest threats our democracy has ever faced.
I'm not so sanguine that reverting to paper is the panacea that other commenters seem to
think. I do believe that we must take steps immediately to verify our voter roles in an
inclusive fashion. I'd rather see a single invalid voter included, that have many valid
voters excluded.
We should all strongly support any attempts to secure the ballot through means of
technology, physical ballot or follow-up verification. The electorate might have more faith
in the process if the got a receipt so they were positive their vote had been properly and
accurately tallied.
As far as gerrymandering ... tough problem. A lasting non-partisan solution is what we
need, and this repeated recourse to the courts is only a bandaid fix. Maybe if we went to a
strictly numerical population and geographic based technique, one that would remove all
politics from the equation, we'd have a more fair way of setting electoral districts.
Unfortunately that would most likely make everyone unhappy.
"The Trump-Russia story survives, even as evidence of collusion fades" [Ed Rogers,
WaPo ]. "Anyway, the previously gathering storm of Russian collusion seems to be breaking
up into a few unconnected showers that won't soak Trump.
Lightening won't strike, Trump's presidency won't be killed. He won't even catch a cold.
Trump's associates could be in trouble for offenses that occurred before the Trump campaign
even started. Others may be embarrassed by their amateur language and behavior during the campaign,
and a few may look evasive or dishonest as a result of their attempts to justify or deny their
actions once the investigation began."
Rogers is a Republican, and while
not a #NeverTrump supporter , not a pom-pom waver either. Anyhow, the totally-in-good-faith-always
liberal Democrats seem to have moved on to fresh memes and postures new. A blessing, I suppose.
"Why Is Everyone So Craven?" [
Slate ]. Brutal take-down of the Democrat nomenklatura :
Resistance-minded Democratic Party politicians have become fond of declaring that Donald
Trump is trampling, assaulting, and attacking the ideals of American democracy by ignoring
corruption rules, bullying institutions like the FBI, letting Russia off the hook for sabotaging
our last election, etc.
And it's true: Trump is abusing, molesting, and committing genocide against every standard
of honesty and ethical conduct that has ever existed in United States public life.
But the institutional Democrats' newfound and ostentatious affection for the sacred principles
of civil society can ring hollow, and two recent stories involving well-connected Democrats
faced with decisions between upholding small-d democratic ideals and helping powerful interests
maintain their power demonstrate why that is.
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
"... Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched. ..."
"... When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be. ..."
"I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying
it for years: I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships
with Russia.
It's a big country, it's a nuclear country, it's a country that we should get along with, and
I think we will eventually get along with Russia".
In spite of Trump's stated wishes, the policies of his administration, irrespective of who is
actually authoring them, are in total opposition to Russia's stated geo-political goals and Russia's
geo-strategic interests.
The Trump administration's approach to Venezuela, Afghanistan (and South Asia as a whole) and
North Korea (and East Asia as a whole) and beyond is totally antithetical to the interests and stated
desires of Russia and Russia's closest partners.
Here are the key places where US policy under Trump and Russia's geo-political positions are in
total opposition
1. Venezuela
In Venezuela Trump has threatened war and implemented sanctions against the government of Nicolas
Maduro. Russia by contrast vehemently opposes sanctions and war.
2. Afghanistan
Trump's flagship policy of a troop surge in Afghanistan is opposed by Russia as is his policy
to effectively bomb the Taliban to the peace table.
Russia favours a process which would see moderate rebel elements of the Taliban invited to a peace
table in conjunction with a cease-fire in order to develop a lasting peace based on reconciliation
between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, something which in reality means a reconciliation
between Pashtun Afghans and the ethnic minorities who are in the current government.
Russia also takes exception to Trump's threats and criticisms against Pakistan, a country which
is rapidly becoming an important Russian partner in South Asia.
3. North Korea
Just this morning, Donald Trump once again threatened war on North Korea. By contrast, Russia
has said multiple times that war can never be considered an option on the Korean peninsula and has
called for the US to cease its delivery of THADD missile systems to South Korea and has also called
for a cessation of US-South Korea military drills. In each of these cases, the US has totally ignored
Russia and China's requests, in spite of the fact that both states border the Korean peninsula.
Russia like China also calls for direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang, something the
Trump administration is apparently not considering seriously at this time.
4. South China Sea
While Russia is not directly involved with the South China Sea dispute, America's provocative
stance on the region has infuriated Russia's most important partner, China. America's imperial actions
in the region, confusingly called 'freedom of navigation' by Washington, do not bode well for Moscow
which wants to see cooperation rather than confrontation in Asia.
The US has blatantly disregarded Turkish concerns about America's arming and funding of Kurdish
militants in Syria while Russia continues to show courtesy and countenance for Turkey's position
which is shared by Iran.
6. Europe
Russia has constantly called for NATO to de-escalate its presence in Europe, but under the Trump
administration, Obama's own European 'troop surge' has continued with no signs of stopping. Donald
Trump's recent speech
in Poland where he
quoted deeply Russophobic propaganda does not bode well for reconciliation between America's
EU allies and Russia.
7. Palestine/Israel
While the US approach to the conflict in the Levant is completely one-sided, Russia maintains
uniquely good relations with both Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders in Tel Aviv. While Russia's
approach is clearly a conflict aversion tactic, if the US supported Israel in any aggression against
Syria, this would clearly end any attempts at fledgling cooperation between the US and Russia in
a Syrian conflict which is in any case, drawing to a close. Russia is carefully balancing the interests
of its Syrian partner with trying to contain the aggressive military posturing of the Israeli regime
with which Russia continues to do business.
Any US support of an Israeli strike against any Middle Eastern country would throw theSyrian de-escalation
zone which is jointly policed by America, Russia and Jordan, into disarray. To this end, the south
western Syrian de-escalation zone is thus far the only area where the Trump administration has made
any progress in respect of improving relations with Russia. Currently, it hangs by a thread for more
reasons than one.
8. Iran and the Persian Gulf
While Donald Trump's Tweets indicate a policy that is fully pro-Saudi, even as his own state department
emphases a US position of neutrality, as Qatar works to re-normalise relations with Iran, the US
could find itself increasingly at odds with its technical ally in Doha.
In respect of Iran itself, Donald Trump continues to advocate hostile policies against Tehran
which include threats to tear up the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal as well as false accusations of
Iran sponsoring terrorism.
Russia by contrast is an economic partner of Iran and is working with Iran to combat Salafist
terrorists in Syria. In the Persian Gulf, Russia has won respect from Qatar for adopting a genuine
andunambiguous position of neutrality. This has also allowed Russia to maintain healthy
relations with Saudi through out the conflict.
9. Libya
The US and the west more broadly seems to have no coherent strategy to deal with the Libyan failed
state, beyond propping up the fledgling Government of National Accord, which is competing with the
National Salvation Government as well as assorted militant groups for control of Tripoli.
By contrast, Russia continues to engage with Khalifa Haftar, the leader of Libya's only successful
and well organised military, the Libyan National Army. The LNA is also the only force in Libya that
has successfully liberated important cities from terrorist control, namely the eastern city of Benghazi.
Egypt continues to support Haftar and the Libyan House of Representatives from which he derives
political legitimacy. As Russia becomes ever closer to the government in Cairo, it would appear that
Russia's plan to help reconcile Haftar's forces with what's left of the UN backed government in Tripoli,
is the closest thing any non-Arab power has to a plan for Libya.
The US appears to have no plans at all, but one can count on the US opposing Russian involvement
in Libya, even though there is now little the US could conceivably do to stop Moscow and Cairo from
cooperating in a country the US first destroyed and later abandoned.
CONCLUSION
As I warned prior to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's first meeting,
"With all the fuss over Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meeting later this week
at the G20 summit, many have conspicuously failed to grasp that the monumental task ahead of both
leaders has little to do with their own period in government and even less to do with their personalities.
These things of course do matter, but their importance is dwarfed by larger historical and present
economic and geo-strategic concerns.
With that in mind, here are the giant obstacles that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will
be faced with when they meet".
In the month and three quarters since the Trump-Putin meeting, this situation has merely intensified.
Differences in American and Russian geo-political interests have become ever more pronounced and
the Trump administration shows no signs of even attempting to meet Russia half way, let alone approach
the situation in a pragmatic manner. The ideological dogmas of the US continue as if Donald Trump
is the mere figurehead in foreign affairs that many believe him to literally be.
Donald Trump's personal respect for Russia seems genuine beyond any lingering doubts. He has no
reason to say he wants warm relations with Russia any longer but he still says he does.
The policies of his administration however, belie the supreme difficulty of implementing such
policies or even attempting to do so.
Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions
in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched.
When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission
difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality,
it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance
which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have
learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as
those around him, allow him to be.
The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal
investigations, not intelligence investigations. Remember that.
In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens
suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of
alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA.
Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been
done by those three agencies.
Basically what these tools have done is confess to the crime. Rice did not deny she did
this, she claims she had the authority to do this.
She did not.
Bring on the prosecutors
– end update
Susan Rice (and her protectors in the news media – one of which is her husband at ABC
News) have been putting out a new trial balloon to see if they can avoid the coming
Constitutional crisis over the Obama administration using NSA surveillance data to data-mine
their political opposition: a.k.a. Team Trump.
The contortions by which Rice and her news media allies (democrats all) are going through to
deflect this smoking gun
has hit the absurd
:
Rice denied those charges Tuesday, saying she was "shocked" to read the claims when they
emerged. She said the White House isn't responsible for ordering that type of surveillance.
She maintained, however, that asking for more information about names included in
intelligence reports was a routine and necessary aspect of her job in protecting American
security
Uh – no. The White House – which is where she worked when National Security
Advisor
(please not the emphasis on "Advisor") – cannot investigate US citizens
for criminal acts. The White House cannot even direct the FBI who to investigate or not!
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) is appointed by the
President without
confirmation
by the
Senate
.
[3]
The influence and role of the National Security Advisor varies from
administration to administration and depends not only on the qualities of the person
appointed to the position but also on the style and management philosophy of the incumbent
President.
[4]
Ideally, the APNSA serves as an honest broker of policy options for the
President in the field of national security, rather than as an advocate for his or her own
policy agenda.
[5]
This role is to assist in drafting policies, strategies, regulations, etc.
So one has to ask, why was she unmasking these innocent people and violating their 4th
Amendment Rights? She actually should have no ability to peak into the lives of Americans.
None. Not in her job-jar.
The White House is NOT authorized to investigate – not even foreign players. Those
authorities are given to a select few organizations in the federal government.
And when it comes to investigating US Citizens, that falls to one and only one federal
organization: The FBI.
I know the Democrat News Media is trying to shield Rice and Obama from their bumbling,
stumbling activities that will destroy their legacy.
But at least come up with something that passes the laugh test and does not remind us of
another overly-clever sleuth protecting the masses:
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American Citizens
'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice
requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that
connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with
the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets
of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those
names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something
like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted a
while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request the
unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail of who
the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team Trump,
the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
missions or functions that are the basis for its request
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its approval
decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully complies with
paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts involving
members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated to review the
requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made by
the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Micheal Rogers, who had
to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause to
unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and violating
their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the hands
of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive Trump-Russian connection.
The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA on its way to the news media
is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence
reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White
House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end
his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the logs
would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a nothing-burger
and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped off
Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that would
be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only yielded
results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That would be political
targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would never
risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on this news.
It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude or criminal
intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious lines.
They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since these unmasking
processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to, if not over, those
Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was she,
the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication contenrs?
Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
Fake new industry is not sleeping ;-) Neocons and neolib stop at nothing trying to sink Trump administration.
and especaiiluy anti-globalization and anti-forigh wars parts of his agenda, althouth those parts already
by-and-large disappeared. But inertia is way too strong to stop fake news gravy train...
The viciousness of campaign against Trump of sites like msnbc.com and newspapers like NYT is unprecedented.
Real neo-McCarthyism in full bloom. They really do not respect the results of election, much like Bolsheviks
in Russia.
And leaks, including fake leaks are just integral part of that.
Notable quotes:
"... Mensch denied using the bogus information and said her allegations about Trump's model agency
came from her own sources. Asked why she had retweeted Taylor's false posts, Mensch said: "I don't think
anybody can vet anybody else's sources." ..."
"... In his emails, Taylor pushed the source for sensational material. Three days after she first
contacted him, Taylor asked her: "Is there anything you have heard that's really going to shock people?
An 'Oh my god!' sort of thing?" In another message, Taylor conceded that he may have been "going farther
than I should" by posting tweets that exaggerated the false tips she was giving him. ..."
"... Thousands of people have reposted the false claims tweeted by Taylor, a former staffer in Bill
Clinton's White House. Mensch, a former member of parliament in the UK, retweeted at least 18 posts
by Taylor that were based on the hoaxer's false information, spreading them further afield. ..."
Donald Trump made
by online writers with large followings among Trump critics were based on bogus information from
a hoaxer who falsely claimed to work in law enforcement.
Claude Taylor tweeted fake details of criminal inquiries into Trump that were invented by a
source whose claim to work for the New York attorney general was not checked, according to emails
seen by the Guardian. The allegations were endorsed as authentic and retweeted by his co-writer
Louise Mensch
.
The source's false tips included an allegation, which has been aggressively circulated by Mensch
and Taylor, that Trump's inactive fashion model agency is under investigation by New York authorities
for possible sex trafficking.
The hoaxer, who fed the information to Taylor by email, said she acted out of frustration over
the "dissemination of fake news" by Taylor and Mensch. Their false stories about Trump have included
a claim that he was already being
replaced as president by Senator Orrin Hatch in a process kept secret from the American public.
"Taylor asked no questions to verify my identity, did no vetting whatsoever, sought no confirmation
from a second source – but instead asked leading questions to support his various theories, asking
me to verify them," the source said in an email.
After being approached for comment by the Guardian on Monday, Taylor posted what he described
as a "mea culpa" on Twitter
. "As a 'citizen journalist' I acknowledge my error and do apologize," he wrote.
Mensch denied using the bogus information and said her allegations about Trump's model
agency came from her own sources. Asked why she had retweeted Taylor's false posts, Mensch said:
"I don't think anybody can vet anybody else's sources."
The source falsely claimed to be an official named "Caitlin" in the office of Eric Schneiderman,
New York's attorney general. She shared details of her hoax on the condition of anonymity to avoid
retaliation from followers of Taylor and Mensch. The Guardian verified her true identity and confirmed
that she is not named Caitlin and does not work for Schneiderman.
In his emails, Taylor pushed the source for sensational material. Three days after she
first contacted him, Taylor asked her: "Is there anything you have heard that's really going to
shock people? An 'Oh my god!' sort of thing?" In another message, Taylor conceded that he may
have been "going farther than I should" by posting tweets that exaggerated the false tips she
was giving him.
Thousands of people have reposted the false claims tweeted by Taylor, a former staffer
in Bill Clinton's White House. Mensch, a former member of parliament in the UK, retweeted at least
18 posts by Taylor that were based on the hoaxer's false information, spreading them further afield.
The pair describe themselves as co-writers and have cultivated a large fanbase among some critics
of Trump, many of whom identify as members of the "resistance" movement eager to see the president
removed from office. Taylor has about 200,000 followers on Twitter while Mensch has 267,000 followers.
Claiming to report things that the mainstream media will not, they have also moved to collect
money from readers. Mensch's website Patribiotics
accepts donations "to fund more writers and research". Taylor has said he will soon establish
an online fundraising campaign to protect himself from legal threats. A
GoFundMe page created by supporters
of Taylor has already raised more than $18,000 in his name.
Their reporting has at times entered the mainstream political news agenda. During a television
interview earlier this year,
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts repeated unverified information about the inquiries into
Trump and Russia that he had gleaned from Mensch's website. He later withdrew the comment.
Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman, said in a statement that the incident highlighted
the importance of using "legitimate news outlets, which know to verify their sources and their
facts".
Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for
Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be
indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let
hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out
of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last
an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total
trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters
But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well &
honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?
Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he
was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a
Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself
but all his family?
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for
reeducation
NOW! Don't
force
us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish
racism.
True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like
Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They
present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they
are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present
themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even
religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show
it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world
what crazed narcissism looks like.
The associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen,
in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in
Moscow would highlight Mr. Trump's savvy negotiating skills and be a political boon to his
candidacy.
"Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it," Mr. Sater wrote in an
email. "I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."
The
emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump's campaign, some of his associates
viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation
by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered with
the 2016 presidential election to try to help Mr. Trump. Investigators want to know whether
anyone on Mr. Trump's team was part of that process.
Mr. Sater, a Russian immigrant, said he had lined up financing for the Trump Tower deal with
VTB Bank, a Russian bank that was
under
American sanctions
for involvement in Moscow's efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine.
In another email, Mr. Sater envisioned a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Moscow.
"I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Mr. Sater wrote.
Mr. Sater said he was eager to show video clips to his Russian contacts of instances of Mr.
Trump speaking glowingly about Russia.
There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email
suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which
had stalled. But Mr. Sater did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote
to a general inbox for press inquiries.
The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.
"To be clear, the Trump Organization has never had any real estate holdings or interests in
Russia," the Trump Organization said Monday in a statement.
The Trump Organization on Monday turned over emails to the House Intelligence Committee,
which is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election and whether anyone in Mr.
Trump's campaign was involved. Some of the emails were obtained by The Times.
None of the emails obtained by The Times include any responses from Mr. Cohen to Mr. Sater's
messages.
In a statement on Monday, Mr. Cohen suggested that he viewed Mr. Sater's comments as
puffery. "He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to 'salesmanship,'" the
statement said. "I ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to
make a trip to Russia."
The emails obtained by The Times make no mention of Russian efforts to damage Hillary
Clinton's campaign or the hacking of Democrats' emails. Mr. Trump has said there was no
collusion with Russian officials. Previously released emails, however, revealed that his
campaign was willing to receive damaging information about Mrs. Clinton from Russian
sources.
Mr. Sater was a broker for the Trump Organization at the time of his messages to Mr. Cohen,
which means he was paid to deliver real estate deals and had an incentive to overstate his
business-making acumen. He presents himself in his emails as so influential in Russia that he
helped arrange a 2006 trip that Mr. Trump's daughter, Ivanka, took to Moscow.
"I arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the
Kremlin," he said.
Ms. Trump said she had no involvement in the discussions about the Moscow deal. In a
statement, she said that during the 2006 trip, she took "a brief tour of Red Square and the
Kremlin" as a tourist. She said it is possible she sat in Mr. Putin's chair during that tour
but she did not recall it. "I have never met President Vladimir Putin," she said.
The Times
reported
earlier this year
on the plan for a Trump Tower in Moscow, which never materialized. On
Sunday, The Washington Post
reported the existence
of the correspondence between Mr. Sater and Mr. Cohen but not its
content.
Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for
Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be
indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let
hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out
of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last
an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total
trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters
But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well &
honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?
Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he
was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a
Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself
but all his family?
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for
reeducation
NOW! Don't
force
us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish
racism.
True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like
Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They
present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they
are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present
themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even
religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show
it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world
what crazed narcissism looks like.
Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for
Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be
indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let
hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out
of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last
an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total
trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters
But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well &
honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?
Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he
was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a
Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself
but all his family?
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for
reeducation
NOW! Don't
force
us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish
racism.
True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like
Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They
present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they
are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present
themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even
religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show
it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world
what crazed narcissism looks like.
Bush ignored assessments by panels of scientists, environmentalists and intelligence
professionals. So, largely, did the press. But of course it suits them to make a big deal of
this. Never mind – it's a no-lose situation for those who view America throwing its
weight around with a jaundiced eye. If the Democrats and their cronies are unsuccessful at
impeaching and removing Trump, it will offer encouragement to further aspirants to the office
who are outside the political class. If they are successful, it will be a slap in the face to
the people who elected someone because they were fed up with politicians, and voting
participation will fall off still further.
Well the Yahoo article doesn't say if the "group" of psychiatrists is a small group or a
large group so we have no way of knowing if these psychiatrists are even representative of US
psychiatrists generally. Are they even endorsed in their opinion by their professional
associations? If the group or its opinions on Trump's mental health are not endorsed or
supported by the American Psychiatric Association, and if these psychiatrists are not
prepared to go public with their qualifications and expertise (so that the public can judge
for itself that these people are bona fide mental health professionals and not presumptuous
quacks), then the group has no right to pass judgement on Trump's health.
The fact that this group's leader Dr Bandy Lee is apparently working with Democrat members
of Congress (and not with Republican members) to set up a panel to monitor and advise on
Trump's health tells us her group is just another political lobby group. I should think also
the fact that much of Congress is already antagonistic towards the Trump administration and
is looking for an excuse to impeach him on the grounds of mental or other incapacity under
the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution is suspicious and in this context Dr Bandy Lee's
group and its letter represent a clear danger to democracy.
You have apparently forgotten the eminent psychologist
Vladimir Pastukhov's diagnosis
of Putin's mental state from reading a newspaper article
about him.
I guess this must be proof that the presidency drove Trump crazy. There were no gratuitous
assessments of his mental health prior to that, and he doesn't sound any different to me.
Actually the Department of State can serve as the US Embassy in this case ;-), Remember
demarche of some US diplomats, who objected to the election of Trump. That's a typical color
revolution trick. Happened previously during first and second Maydan in Ukraine.
Also do not underestimated the ability to coordinate protests via selected group of
intelligence professionals who are abusing their status in their organizations (with tacit
leadership approval).
But Shamir while mentioned globalism does not mentions or analyze neoliberalism and this
is a very serious weakness of the article.
Notable quotes:
"... Colour revolutions usually occur only in the countries blessed with a US diplomatic presence. You need an American embassy to find the perspective ruler to be uplifted by a human swell and placed on the throne; you need an American embassy to bring in enough cash to cover expenses of the organised mayhem; you need an American diplomat to protect the revolutionaries and to order the present dictator to desist. Could it be that there is now an American Embassy in America? ..."
"... The Great American Colour Revolution marches on. The script is very similar to the ones they have used overseas. Usually it includes toppled monuments. ..."
"... The force behind the colour revolutions, including the present American one, is not an American force, not even the American deep state, but a global one, serving the globalist elite and the shadowy world government. ..."
"... The world globalists received a serious blow when their candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election, but they didn't waste time and immediately mobilised for a fight. They aren't going to give up hegemony. Practically all the media, judicial system, Congress, intelligence services are in their hands. Charlottesville provided an occasion to show rednecks in whose hands rests hegemony. ..."
"... Hegemonists have their own storm troops – Antifa. This extremist movement was born in Germany. ..."
"... And now Antifa came to America. They have the same mode of action as in Germany. Whoever is against them is a Nazi, or a "white racist". ..."
Colour revolutions usually occur only in the countries blessed with a US diplomatic
presence. You need an American embassy to find the perspective ruler to be uplifted by a human
swell and placed on the throne; you need an American embassy to bring in enough cash to cover
expenses of the organised mayhem; you need an American diplomat to protect the revolutionaries
and to order the present dictator to desist. Could it be that there is now an American Embassy
in America?
The Great American Colour Revolution marches on. The script is very similar to the ones they
have used overseas. Usually it includes toppled monuments. The pro-American forces toppled
monuments to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, to Felix Dzerzhinsky in Moscow, to Vladimir Lenin in
Kiev, to the Russian soldier-liberator in Tallinn and Warsaw. And now the trend came back home
to America like a boomerang, with toppling Confederate statues.
"The American deep state has taken down various opposing regimes via the mechanism of a
Colour Revolution."
This is a good reading, but not a sufficient one. The force behind the colour
revolutions, including the present American one, is not an American force, not even the
American deep state, but a global one, serving the globalist elite and the shadowy world
government.
Until recently, they used US power for their ends, now they successfully fight the rising
Golem of the United States as they fought much a weaker Ukraine or Sweden. "Golem, know thy
place" is the incantation used by the Wizard of Prague, the creator of the Golem, in the
medieval Jewish legend. This spell suborns the creature.
People close to power in the US know or feel the global hegemony. Its bearers are heavily
Jewish liberal groups, who use their PC, their hostility to the Church, their approval of
gender flux in order to undermine the mind and mentality of an ordinary American, of a redneck,
of a working class Goy (as in the Goy, Bye headline). They ceaselessly tease and annoy
this goy, in order to cause his premature acts of rebellion to be easily squashed. In order to
spite the worker, they even put on the latest aircraft carrier only toilet bowls and no urinals‚ to make it more comfortable for supposed transgenders and to enrage the rednecks.
The world globalists received a serious blow when their candidate Hillary Clinton lost the
election, but they didn't waste time and immediately mobilised for a fight. They aren't going
to give up hegemony. Practically all the media, judicial system, Congress, intelligence
services are in their hands. Charlottesville provided an occasion to show rednecks in whose
hands rests hegemony.
Hegemonists have their own storm troops – Antifa. This extremist movement was born
in Germany. There they walk on the streets on the anniversary of Dresden bombings with
Israeli flags and chant: "Death to Germany! Long live Bomber Harris" (the British commander of
the Air Force, a big fan of the carpet bombing of Germany). They managed to terrorize the
Germans: as soon as someone objects they call their opponent a Nazi and beat him up. And if
they encounter resistance, the police comes to the rescue. That's why in Germany resistance to
the mass inflow of migrants was almost imperceptible. It is spoken about in the kitchen, but
not on the streets.
And now Antifa came to America. They have the same mode of action as in Germany. Whoever
is against them is a Nazi, or a "white racist". They proved their mettle in
Charlottesville, the city blessed with the Jewish mayor who chose the city police. Many Jewish
activists came to participate, from as far as Boston. After the scuffle, the newspapers raised
a hue and cry: Nazis attack Jews!
President Trump condemned both sides participating in the brawl‚ both white
nationalists and Antifa. It is exactly what his opponents were waiting for. His attempt to stay
above the brawl was doomed to defeat: liberal hegemonists immediately branded him a racist and
neo-Nazi. Trump reminded them that not all defenders of the monument were white racists, but
this argument didn't work.
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do.
Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
"... "I realized after the President's speech this week on Afghanistan that he's not being well-served," Gorka said. "That speech was written by people for the President in direct contravention of everything that we voted for November the 8th." ..."
"... In his interview Saturday, Gorka said: "It is important now that key personalities inside the NSC have been removed that we keep the pressure on from the outside because we must continue until global jihadism is a laughing stock and does not pose a serious threat to America and our friends or allies" ..."
"... On the day he was fired, Bannon told The Weekly Standard: "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." He added, "We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It'll be something else." ..."
"... Gorka said on Saturday: "I decided, just as with Steve, we can be far more effective for the President on the outside, and it's a very exciting day for me and my family to start again supporting the MAGA message as private citizens." ..."
"... CNN's Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins and Eric Bradner, contributed to this report. ..."
Gorka also stressed to Breitbart's Matt Boyle on SiriusXM Patriot on Saturday morning that
he decided to resign after President Donald Trump delivered a speech Monday night outlining the
US path forward in Afghanistan, including an unspecified troop increase.
"I realized after the President's speech this week on Afghanistan that he's not being
well-served," Gorka said. "That speech was written by people for the President in direct
contravention of everything that we voted for November the 8th."
... ... ...
In his interview Saturday, Gorka said: "It is important now that key personalities
inside the NSC have been removed that we keep the pressure on from the outside because we must
continue until global jihadism is a laughing stock and does not pose a serious threat to
America and our friends or allies"
Gorka echoed comments Bannon made after he left the administration regarding the officials
who now occupy the West Wing.
On the day he was fired, Bannon told The Weekly Standard: "The Trump presidency that we
fought for, and won, is over." He added, "We still have a huge movement, and we will make
something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It'll be something
else."
Gorka said on Saturday: "I decided, just as with Steve, we can be far more effective for
the President on the outside, and it's a very exciting day for me and my family to start again
supporting the MAGA message as private citizens."
"Time to make #MAGA real outside the @WhiteHouse," he tweeted after the interview.
CNN's Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins and Eric Bradner, contributed to this
report.
"... In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir. ..."
"The country's bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get
married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education
you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your
employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded,
and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance
substance abuse and crime.
You might think that's pretty bland stuff."
You might think that's bland, but in essence that was the American Myth for most of the 20th
century. In the middle nineteen fifties the myth began to unravel when the boomers reached sufficient
numbers to be targeted for separation from the mainstream mythology. They constituted a potential
very lucrative major market. Enter bubble-gum pop: an entry vehicle for what would follow. Bye
bye "Your Hit Parade". Hello Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.
Forward flash to 2017 and that pretty bland stuff still looks like pretty bland stuff. So if
Myth America was too bland to be true, how do we set about replacing it with something more realistic.
In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives
were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir.
May I suggest an acronym – rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the
Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
Neoliberalism logically leads to the establishment on military junta or some variation of
centralized control of the state. This also makes possible to suppress or at least deflect the
wave of right wing nationalism that is swiping all Western countries and which also is the
restion to the failure of neoliberalism as a social system The USA is just a little bit ahead of
EU countries in this respect
Notable quotes:
"... Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff. ..."
"... Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans. ..."
"... The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters. ..."
"... The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law. ..."
"... This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog ..."
"... on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again. ..."
"... But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo. ..."
"... I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues. ..."
"... Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans. ..."
"... Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil ..."
"... "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements". ..."
"... As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method.. ..."
"... The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced. ..."
"... I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's. ..."
"... The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:) ..."
According to a 1950s political theory
The Structure of Power in
American Society
is mainly build on three
elite
groups, the high military, the
corporation executives and the political directorate. (The "political directorate" can best be
described as the bureaucracy, the CIA and their proxies within Congress.)
On election day I noted that only the military had supported
The Not-Hillary
President
. The corporate and executive corners of the triangle had pushed for Hillary
Clinton and continued to do so even after Trump had won. (Only recently did the "collusion with
Russia" nonsense suddenly die down.) I wrote:
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and
whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.
At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as
battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated
personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.
...
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the
Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy
Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the
military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the
senior staff.
With the firing of the renegade Flynn and various other Trump advisors, the Junta has
already removed all independent voices in the White House. It is now
attaching
more
control wires to its "salesperson" marionette:
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure
that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency
reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during
his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then
find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for
corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space
along with the banksters.
The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the
judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite
into their interpretations of statuatory law.
Meanhwhile NATO join Sweden in tremendous military exercise next month. But western outlet
propaganda journalists wont tell you about that...
Exercise: "Aurora 17"
"Is a planned military exercise that will take place in Sweden during a three-week period,
from 11 through 29 September 2017.[1] It is expected to be the largest military exercise in
20 years to take place on Swedish soil.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_17
on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt
one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully
agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will
happen again.
point 2 - israel wants a war with iran.. they will dream up anything they can to keep the
usa military on alert for whatever hairbrained warmongering act they have in mind next..
point 3.. more bullshit to sprinkle with what is not bullshit - nato war exercises as @4
anonymous points out...
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to
ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos,
agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy
during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He
will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
...
I agree it's beginning to LOOK grim for Trump, b.
But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The
Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation.
The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the
Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names).
Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could
install his own stoolies. Imo.
That said, again the private finance folk are not included in your analysis. The private
finance folk are certainly part of Trump's inner circle and none of them have been ejected.
Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their
organizations......
I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart
money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally.
Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain
the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT
issues.
Western Society is awash in propaganda as it is enveloped in a Homeland Security/Domestic
Surveillance Police State - New World Order - Juggernaut.
Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union"
committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because
of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans.
(Homeland Security is budgeted such that airport security personnel are hired not out of
necessity, but simply to soak up the funding.
Thanks b, I would agree that a military Junta has the reins and Trump's ear, but, as
psycho @ 14 said..
"Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals
through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second
lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements".
The raucous clamor painting Trump as a Russkie collaborator has now sputtered, frizzled out,
to be replaced by the equally lame 'Trump is a neo-nazi fascist racist mysoginist' as his
supporters 'mow down ppl', etc. or whatever. All these elements were present before he was
elected. (Trump is less racist than Obama..not that it matters..)
As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist
attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the
PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are
supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a
disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever
be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest,
etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.'
Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law'
method..
The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are
the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military
Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in
certain conditions it is embraced.
I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself
primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my
opinion and probably not in Trump's.
re Trump info access
He has people who can and do provide him with info galore outside of the office, he is not as
isolated as you suggest, and he is out of the office a lot:)
re Wars
... ... ...
re Afghanistan
The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they
may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:)
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
This is the key question: if there are instances of meddling in the USA elections
while not to investigate them all, why to select Russia who is probably a monor
player in this game.
Notable quotes:
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal
press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC
are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians
have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that
the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome;
no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that
conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when
it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner
was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last
year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of
devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's
a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active
interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel
regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel
lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople,
including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment
by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC
has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government
and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright,
AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to
be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald
Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent
weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S.
duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes
that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his
Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest?
In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy
vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position
in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.
But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its
hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United
States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends
in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on
the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions
that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb
on our scale. Let's review:
Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state
solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously
for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated
in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and
its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop
settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky
has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not
the other way round.)
Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy
in the 60s, and likely also
by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through
a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this
from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception–
and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region,
and
fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform
the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee
you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The
leading
Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing
American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring
democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such
as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war
against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv.
Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in
our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly
should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer
and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the
media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts
of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its
armed forces.
"... He did not drain the swamp. After telling voters how he would take control away from special interests, he has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street players he decried. Now, those who gamed politicians for tax loopholes and laws that reward the rich don't even have to sneak around with backroom deals. ..."
"... Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, Dina Powell and others from Wall Street, as well as corporate lobbyists by the dozens, are now inside the Trump administration rigging the system for the extremely wealthy from the inside. ..."
"... They want to make it easier for banks to once again gamble with your money and repeat our financial crisis. They want to cut health care for millions of you. They want to lower taxes on corporations and the rich. They want to get rid of rules that stop corporations from harming your health or safety. ..."
"... That's not the change you were promised. Make America Great Again? The Trump administration wants to expand on policies that have kept American wages stagnant for almost four decades. Huge corporations and billionaires get the breaks, and hard working Americans once again get left waiting for the crumbs. That's not the change you were promised. ..."
You voted to change our country's power base – to get rid of crony capitalism and give
our government back to the people who are working, paying taxes, and spending more just to
survive. Lots of Americans agree with you. But now, the president is turning his back on that
idea and the many changes he promised.
He did not drain the swamp. After telling voters how he would take control away from
special interests, he has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street players he decried. Now,
those who gamed politicians for tax loopholes and laws that reward the rich don't even have to
sneak around with backroom deals.
Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, Dina Powell and others from Wall Street, as well as corporate
lobbyists by the dozens, are now inside the Trump administration rigging the system for the
extremely wealthy from the inside.
They want to make it easier for banks to once again gamble with your money and repeat
our financial crisis. They want to cut health care for millions of you. They want to lower
taxes on corporations and the rich. They want to get rid of rules that stop corporations from
harming your health or safety.
That's not the change you were promised. Make America Great Again? The Trump
administration wants to expand on policies that have kept American wages stagnant for almost
four decades. Huge corporations and billionaires get the breaks, and hard working Americans
once again get left waiting for the crumbs. That's not the change you were promised.
Bringing back fiscal responsibility? The Secret Service budget is skyrocketing to protect
his family on international business trips, ski vacations, and separate New York City living
quarters.
At the same time, the president still refuses to untangle himself from his businesses and
prove he's not leveraging our government for his financial gain. You're paying for his
lifestyle while he's doing nothing to help yours.
"... The Hillary Clinton supporting Deep State is elated by this decision. Naturally most of the media is too. ..."
"... The warmongering is not stopping. Most people don't even know in how many conflicts the US is involved in and now they will know even less until it is too late. ..."
"... There are very few policy positions held by Trump that I support, but pulling U.S. troops out of the Afghanistan quagmire was one of them. More broken promises, more advancement of failed "macho aggression" tactics, and more loss of lives and treasure. Thanks Trump -- you stink. ..."
"... There is too much money to be made. Follow the money! ..."
"... He was reading what Gen. Kelly had written off of a teleprompter. Anybody can show some semblance of balance and sense when they read someone else's words off of a teleprompter. ..."
"... The "anti war conservatives" who are now complaining: (1) elected a president with no governing experience and hence no foreign policy track record whatsoever, (2) apparently relied on Trump's words alone in concluding he would advance the foreign policy they advocate, and (3) did so knowing Trump repeatedly and habitually lies about matters both big and small. This is a recipe for disappointment. ..."
"... The truth at this point should be obvious to conservatives and liberals (and everybody in between): This president is a reality television personality -- nothing more. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and he's not terribly concerned with promises made. Look no further than his promises that Mexico would "pay for" a border wall while he essentially confided to the Mexican president that no such payment actually was expected. ..."
"... Your country's politicians, army and intelligence officers like to keep the cauldron of Afghanistan and Kashmir on either side boiling all the time, so U.S dollars keep pouring in and they can continue with their luxurious way of life. ..."
"... Remember when the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters". And if I remember correctly the Taliban were the good guys in one of those Rambo movies. ... ..."
"... These people are idiots. The President has surrounded himself with the "War Party." From numerous barely retired Generals to nationalists like Gorka and even the DeVos/Prince connection. Not exactly the party of peace. ..."
"... Yes, Prince will be raking it in. Especially when he manages to convince Trump mercenaries are a great solution ..."
President Trump's speech advocating a stepped-up military commitment in Afghanistan won him
his first positive reviews from some Republicans in weeks -- and a respite from the controversy
over his handling of Charlottesville.
"I think I heard a new Trump strategy, or doctrine," said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan
(R-Wis.).
"I think there'll be a lot of bipartisan support in Congress for this proposal," said Sen.
Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
But the speech was a horror for one portion of Trump's base -- conservatives opposed to
military adventurism. Having celebrated when Trump mocked the Bush-era foreign policy
consensus, opposing (after the fact) the Iraq War.
"Everybody who voted for Donald Trump hoping that he would reduce the US military's
involvement in foreign wars has been made a fool of," American Conservative columnist Rod
Dreher wrote in a Wednesday morning column. "I'm sorry, but there it is."
[In escalating America's longest war, Trump acts against his 'original instinct']
At AntiWar.com, a hub for anti-imperialist libertarians, the Trump speech was received with
an arch sort of resignation. "The war party got to him," wrote AntiWar's Eric Garris, sharing a
2012 video in which Trump called for America to leave Afghanistan.
"We've wasted billions and billions of dollars, and more importantly, thousands and
thousands of lives," the future president said in the video.
Steve Diamond,
8:59 AM EDT
The saddest, most horrifying part of this is the completion of an insidious long term
trend: making America's foreign policy a state secret that citizens are not allowed to know.
The US generals know that the biggest threat of ending the billions of dollars for endless
wars is the scrutiny of the public. PR distractions, embedded journalism, no more body
counts, plausible deniability, and on and on. It's a war on truth, and the American people
are a threat to a hoped for victory someday, because they have other priorities than
permanent wars which only put us in more danger.
Michael Stephens,
8:53 AM EDT
The Hillary Clinton supporting Deep State is elated by this decision. Naturally most
of the media is too.
Momcat,
8/22/2017 5:47 PM EDT
"Everybody who voted for Donald Trump ... has been made a fool of".
Nailed it!
Grannylore,
5:26 PM EDT
The warmongering is not stopping. Most people don't even know in how many conflicts
the US is involved in and now they will know even less until it is too late.
One Who Reads,
8/22/2017 11:46 AM EDT
There are very few policy positions held by Trump that I support, but pulling U.S.
troops out of the Afghanistan quagmire was one of them. More broken promises, more
advancement of failed "macho aggression" tactics, and more loss of lives and treasure. Thanks
Trump -- you stink.
Grannylore
, 5:28 PM EDT
There is too much money to be made. Follow the money!
pigface,
8/22/2017 12:38 PM EDT
He was reading what Gen. Kelly had written off of a teleprompter. Anybody can show
some semblance of balance and sense when they read someone else's words off of a
teleprompter.
Grannylore,
5:29 PM EDT
But beware when it comes from a general,
johnrf,
8/22/2017 11:41 AM EDT
Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.
Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military and
the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and
the Monetary,
get together whenever they think its necessary,
They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.
The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are
arbitrary.
We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.
Gil Scott Heron
One Who Reads, 8/22/2017 11:46 AM EDT
Yep, it's Winter in America, all over again.
Desiree Wenrich, 8/22/2017 5:21 PM EDT
I'm just glad there are no dragons.
Eileen Kuch, 3:48 PM EDT
Fantastic poem you just posted, John, Gil Scott Heron had it nailed perfectly. What Trump
did was he surrendered meekly to the MIC, showed no courage whatsoever.
The MSM can squawk all they can about Neville Chamberlain's so-called "appeasement" to Adolf
Hitler at the Munich Conference in 1938; but the truth of that is, there was no
"appeasement".
But now, we have Donald Trump's actual appeasement to John Kelly and the other
warmongering Generals over the Afghan War, instead of securing negotiations between the
current Afghan Gov't. and the Taliban (which Trump was ready to do). Chamberlain was greeted
by cheering UK citizens upon his return from Munich, but all Trump's getting for his
appeasement to the MIC over Afghanistan is a huge backlash from a handful of true
conservative Republicans and the American public.
Owat_Agoosiam, 8/22/2017 11:45 AM EDT
Quite right, too little, too late. But if Trump doesn't toe the line militarily, his
generals will leave him to fend for himself. So four thousand now, two thousand next week,
five thousand next month. Before you know it, we're surging.
Grannylore, 5:33 PM EDT
Forget about universal healthcare, safe roads, bridges and dams, education of our
children. But hurray, we want to win the war in Afghanistan.
Elobornola, 8/22/2017 11:28 AM EDT
The "anti war conservatives" who are now complaining: (1) elected a president with no
governing experience and hence no foreign policy track record whatsoever, (2) apparently
relied on Trump's words alone in concluding he would advance the foreign policy they
advocate, and (3) did so knowing Trump repeatedly and habitually lies about matters both big
and small. This is a recipe for disappointment.
The truth at this point should be obvious to conservatives and liberals (and everybody
in between): This president is a reality television personality -- nothing more. He said what
he needed to say to get elected, and he's not terribly concerned with promises made. Look no
further than his promises that Mexico would "pay for" a border wall while he essentially
confided to the Mexican president that no such payment actually was expected.
Fair people on both sides can fairly debate Afghanistan policy. But can we finally agree
that this president is a serial liar?
Reine Audu, 8/22/2017 11:28 AM EDT
Make our Afghan Puppet government great again.
Usman Khan,
8/22/2017 10:41 AM EDT
As a Pakistani I strongly believe that trump must order all his diplomats to return back
to USA and cut off all ties. Most of Pakistanies believe that main cause of all Pakistani
Problems is USA and it its hypocrite leaders. I would suggest that all Pakistani Americans
must be sent back to Pakistan and their american citizenship should be cancelled. In 70 years
of Pakistani history this will be the best thing ever to happen that USA has no space in
Pakistan and perhaps it would be equally good for USA too.
The problem with US leadership is that they continuously interfere in Pakistani matters
since 1947. They killed first prime minister of Pakistan and always supported dictatorship
from Gen Ayub Khan, Gen Zia, Gen Musharaf.
USA created Taliban to tackle USSR and now those Talibans have made the life of ordinary
Pakistani hell.
There is no compulsion on you guys to have any ties with Pakistan. The world is now
divided in two camps good and evil, there is no space for hypocrisy anymore so if you think
your self in good camp then leave us alone we are happy in our bad camp, just let us live and
live your life. You on your way we on our way.
Grannylore,
5:38 PM EDT
The US armed the Taliban in order to fight the Soviets. And now that insanity has back
fired. Just like the support of the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Omar Qaddafi in
Libya. First they are our puppets and we supply them with arms and chemicals, and when they
refuse to obey, we attack them.
'It's a coup d'etat': Antiwar conservatives decry Trump's
Afghanistan surge - The Washington Post
Timepass Techie
8/22/2017 11:27 AM EDT
Although the U.S. owe responsibility for creating the Taliban, it is the U.S that is being
played for a sucker for a long time now.
Your country's politicians, army and
intelligence officers like to keep the cauldron of Afghanistan and Kashmir on either side
boiling all the time, so U.S dollars keep pouring in and they can continue with their
luxurious way of life.
Usman Khan 8/22/2017 11:49 AM EDT
well again if i am failed to explain in my post i would be blunt to say LEAVE US ALONE. We
are happy to live here and love to contribute to my beloved nation in maintaining minimum
deterrence. We solute our forefathers and seniors for providing us nuclear and missile
technology which is being technically enhanced every day and good enough to tackle India. We
are proud of our young army, air force and navy officers, staff and intelligence people who
are sacrificing their lives, time and families for all of us so we can wear whatever we want
whether jeans t shirt or burqa or hijab or pray in church mandir or mosque, we are not afraid
of being black, white, muslim or non muslim
As a nation we are quite emotional and if any war imposed on us trust me retaliation from
us will be unbearable for you guys in general and India in particular. By not providing us
aid u would be helping us alot, i request ur government to completely cut off aid and send
back all american Pakistani who are extremely talented
johnrf 8/22/2017 11:50 AM EDT
Remember when the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters". And if I remember correctly the
Taliban were the good guys in one of those Rambo movies. ...
wa51jd 8/22/2017 4:28 PM EDT
We don't deport American citizens. Obviously Pakistani Americans don't want to live in
Pakistan or they would be there, not here. So no, we won't be sending them back there. If
they choose to go, fine, but I don't see a big exodus happening. .
Owat_Agoosiam 8/22/2017 11:41 AM EDT
You're absolutely right, we should cut off Pakistan. It will make our relationship with India
that much stronger.
Usman Khan 8/22/2017 12:00 PM EDT
Absolutely correct @Owat, as I remember reading a column in NYtimes that USA is a bad friend
and a good enemy
Mr. Dreher could have simplified his statement by dropping the qualifier and just saying,
"Everybody who voted for Donald Trump has been made a fool of." ...
the most striking idea in his speech to me was the idea of involving India in the conflict
with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan and India gained independence from colonial status in
the British Empire. Millions died as Moslems from India's multi religious society and Hindus
from Pakistan were moved from that overwhelming Islamic country. Some were moved forcibly,
some by choice, from each region where those individuals were in the religious minority.
Pakistan (and now what is Bangladesh) became Islamic and India Multi religious
Today, Kashmir, an area of India, is still the area in which armed conflicts occur by
those who wish it to be controlled by Pakistan
these religious conflicts have existed for centuries as Islamic forces came from the north
and west (and other routes ) to gain control over the Hindus of India until the Europeans
took control. Out bursts of violence on both sides continued during the rule by
Europeans.
This is not an attack by me on the peaceful religion of Islam, just a real world
recognition that in many areas of the world, religious differences are used as a basis for
violent conflict.
does no one in the trump know history?
India and Pakistan have nuclear tipped rockets aimed at each other and the trump
administration wish to have India attempt to influence those countries driven by their
Islamic Religious beliefs? The trump administration thinks that would be helpful? Why not ask
Nazis to intervene in the conflict between Israel and its Islamic neighbors?
These people are idiots. The President has surrounded himself with the "War Party." From
numerous barely retired Generals to nationalists like Gorka and even the DeVos/Prince
connection. Not exactly the party of peace.
wa51jd 8/22/2017 4:31 PM EDT
Yes, Prince will be raking it in. Especially when he manages to convince Trump
mercenaries are a great solution
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite . ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for
my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about
Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally,
possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the
meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is
Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday,
for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts
with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's
family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem.
MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in
our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the
Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced
legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed
on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of
Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the
Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator
Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a
scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached
with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to
Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult
& worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the
real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear
that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could
be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the
Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips
in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has
involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are
afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries
reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel
weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:
–Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S.
policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even
the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel
lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in
2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client
is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
–Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and
likely also
by pilfering
highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania.
There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they
all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race
around the region, and
fostered the U.S.
image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
–Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for
the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading
Israel
lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the
neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel
safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go
to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the
voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say
it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond
the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby.
But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey
Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.
How the Brass Talked Another President Into a Losing Strategy Despite tough talk, Trump
approach on Afghanistan is no different than 2009. By
Mark Perry
•
August 22, 2017
President Donald Trump walks with U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Howard, commander of Joint Force
Headquarters, at Arlington National Cemetery, May 29, 2017. Behind them are Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis and U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Flickr/CreativeCommons/DOD
photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)
The American people don't like long wars with uncertain outcomes!and never have. That was true
in 1953, when the U.S. accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North Koreans,
and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious defeat and 58,000 dead at the
hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North Vietnamese army. "Never fight a land war in Asia,"
General Douglas MacArthur famously said, and for good reason: in both Korea and Vietnam, the enemy
could be endlessly supplied and reinforced.
The solution, in both cases, was to either widen the war or leave. In Korea, MacArthur proposed
expanding the war by taking on Chinese military sanctuaries in China (which got him fired), while
in Vietnam, Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and mined North Vietnam's harbors, an
expansion of the war that sparked a genocide and merely postponed the inevitable. America's adventures
in Iraq and Afghanistan have been as unsatisfying. A troop surge retrieved America's position in
Iraq, though most military officers now view Baghdad as "a suburb of Tehran" (as a currently serving
Army officer phrased it), while the U.S. has spent over $800 billion on a Kabul government whose
writ extends to sixty percent of the country!or less.
Given this, it's not surprising that opinion surveys showed that the majority of the U.S. military
supported Donald Trump in the last election; Trump promised a rethink of America's Iraq and Afghanistan's
adventures, while Clinton was derided as an interventionist, or in Pentagon parlance, "cruise missile
liberal." Trump had the edge over his opponent among both military voters and veterans, especially
when it came to ISIS: "I would bomb the shit out of them"
he said, a statement translated
in the military community as "I would bomb the shit out of them!and get out." A headline in
The Military Times two months before the election said it all: "After 15 years of war, America's
military has about had it with 'nation building.'"
As it turned out, the military weren't the only ones who'd "had it with nation building"!so too
did Donald Trump. Back in January 2013, two years before he was a candidate for president, Trump
made it clear what he would do if he ever occupied the White House. "Let's get out of Afghanistan,"
he
tweeted. "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense!
Rebuild the USA." Three days later, Trump was even more outspoken, explicitly endorsing Barack Obama's
Afghanistan strategy!which amounted to a troops surge, followed by a troop drawdown. "I agree with
Pres. Obama on Afghanistan," he wrote. "We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting
our money – rebuild the U.S.!"
Now, after
addressing the American people Monday on his "new strategy in South Asia" (a purposeful trope
used to signal his intention to shape a broader, regional policy), Trump appears to have embraced
the military's anti-nation building sentiments, while adopting a policy of "winning," though without
saying exactly how that would happen. The policy! which also includes not saying how many troops
"winning" will take, or setting a timetable for victory!includes a pledge of help from America's
allies, and a new focus on Pakistan. Trump was also intent to signal that his new strategy (the war
will be left in the hands of warfighters, he announced, and not "micro-managed from Washington")
is much different than the one adopted by his predecessors who, as he all but said, got it wrong.
In fact, though he would almost certainly deny it, what Trump has proposed is a reprise of what
Barack Obama did in January of 2009.
Back then, one of Obama's first decisions on Afghanistan was to assign Bruce Riedel, a 30-year
CIA veteran and South Asia expert, to study the conflict and come up with ways to fight it. The following
March, on Air Force One, Riedel briefed Obama on his conclusions. Afghanistan would be a big problem
for a long time, he said, but the situation in the country was getting worse. The Kabul government
was corrupt, its leaders were out-of-touch with the Afghan people and the Taliban and al-Qaeda were
gaining strength. But even with that, Riedel added, the real problem wasn't really Afghanistan, it
was Pakistan. "That's the real challenge," Riedel said.
Obama agreed with Riedel's sobering assessment and, on March 27, 2009, he announced his decision
to the American people. "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor
Pakistan," Obama said in a nationally televised address. "In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaeda
and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier."
Put more simply (though Obama did not mention it), the same problem that the U.S. had faced in Korea,
and again in Vietnam and Iraq!its failure to destroy the sanctuaries where its enemies could be reinforced
and resupplied!it was now facing in Afghanistan. To deal with that problem, Obama appointed super-diplomat
Richard Holbrooke to serve as a special envoy to the region (and to work with Centcom commander David
Petraeus "to integrate our civilian and military efforts"), launched a drone war against Taliban
and al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, urged Congress to pass a $1.5 billion aid package to Pakistan that
would make American strikes more palatable and then, the following May, replaced General David McKiernan,
the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with Stanley McChrystal.
It didn't work.
In 2012, reporter and author Rajiv Chandrasekaran (whose book Little America: The War Within
the War for Afghanistan remains the authoritative source on the Obama plan) concluded that while
the Taliban was "pushed out of large stretches of southern Afghanistan," and the "influx of U.S.
resources accelerated the development of the Afghan security forces"
the surge
did not achieve its objectives . In effect, the Obama administration threw good money after bad:
Afghan president Hamid Karzai never bought into the strategy, the Pakistanis failed to "meaningfully
pursue" the Taliban and the Afghan army hung back!allowing the U.S. to do the fighting. What the
U.S. should have done, Chandrasekaran wrote, was "go long." Afghanistan is not a sprint, he concluded,
but a marathon!and America "got winded too quickly."
James Mattis and H.R. McMaster have digested these lessons, a senior Pentagon official told me
just hours before Trump's national address, and "have spent the last weeks trying to convince the
president that the 'three yards and a cloud of dust' approach," as he termed it, will work. Roughly
translated, what that means is that in adopting a more modest increase in American troops, as McMaster
and Mattis told Trump, the president would be signaling that while the U.S. was willing to help the
Afghan government fight the Taliban, the numbers would not be significant enough to defeat them!that
would have to be done by the Afghan Army. In truth, the McMaster-Mattis approach (what one senior
Pentagon officer described as "doubling down on a war that is going nowhere") has some support in
the U.S. diplomatic community, and particularly among those civilians who have spent years working
in the country.
Among these is David Sedney, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, who is the former acting president of the American University of Afghanistan and served
as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. For Sedney,
it's the uncertainty of the American commitment that has been the problem. "We've been ambivalent
about Afghanistan for the last fifteen years," he told The American Conservative , "and
this has given hope to the Taliban and Pakistan. The message that they've taken is that all they
need do is wait the U.S. out. Bush focused on Iraq and Obama put in troops caps." One of the keys,
Sedney goes on to say, is that the U.S. "has failed to strengthen the Afghan state in fundamental
ways, but the most important is to make a commitment and keep it. That's the key."
Sedney also has little use for the views retailed inside the White House by outside experts, like
Frontier Services Group president Eric Prince, who advised the administration (in a Wall Street
Journal op-ed back in May, and then in a personal meeting with McMaster) to increase the number
of contractors in the country, thereby allowing for a drawdown in U.S. troops while also, as Prince
argued, saving the U.S. money. While some Pentagon officials speculated as late as last week that
secretary Mattis "was not as opposed to the Prince's ideas as was originally thought," more recent
reports say that the idea "was dead on arrival in the Pentagon, almost from the minute it was mentioned."
Sedney dismisses the idea out of hand, citing his experience with his students in Kabul. "My students
don't want an American proconsul," he says, "they want an Afghan government that knows how to do
the job, and that should be our focus."
But while Trump has apparently nixed Prince's contractor idea (and it went unmentioned in his
speech), Pentagon officials tell The American Conservative that he has quietly bought into
claims that the U.S. can help revive the Afghan economy by exploiting the nation's mineral resources.
While Trump did not mention the program in his speech, and the claim remains debated in the White
House, the president (a senior Pentagon civilian told TAC) "is intent to explore ways for this war
to pay for itself"!which apparently includes a review of whether Afghanistan's resources can be exploited
sufficiently to put the Afghan government on a sound footing. Will it work?
"This was a good idea back in 2009," one former Pentagon official says, "but it's not going to
work now." A geologic survey conducted a decade ago shows that Afghanistan is rich in deposits of
gold, silver, and platinum, as well as large quantities of uranium, zinc, bauxite, coal, natural
gas and copper!
a mother lode of natural resources that could proved Kabul with a badly needed budgetary windfall
.
"It's a pig in a poke," a former Pentagon official who worked in Afghanistan on identifying the
deposits told The American Conservative , "don't believe a word of it." The archaic "pig in
a poke" phrase, which denotes that a buyer should beware of buying a pig that couldn't be seen (because
it was in a "poke," or bag), denotes the common belief that while Afghanistan may contain the mineral
deposits numerous mining surveys have identified, they remain elusive. Then too, as the former Pentagon
official with whom we spoke says, the idea that American companies will realize a windfall on the
mineral scheme (to which, as a businessman, Trump is particularly attracted), is simply not in reach.
"American companies no longer do the kind of mining that it would take," this former Pentagon
official says, "security is bad, and commodity prices have collapsed. Why would companies invest
in mineral deposits in Afghanistan when they won't make the same investments in Australia." Which
is to simply say that the Afghanistan problem is now, under Trump, what it was under George W. Bush
and Barack Obama!an intransigent challenge whose resolution is dependent on fighting and winning
a war against an enemy who can fight, retreat, resupply and reinforce and fight again. The key to
that victory is now what it has always been: Pakistan. Trump, and McMaster and Mattis, realize this
of course, which is why tonight the president focused on providing a strategy for "South Asia"!a
phrase the defense secretary, in particular, has used over the last weeks.
"I have hope for Afghanistan," CSIS's Sedney says. "The Afghan military is fighting better than
ever before. When I went to Kabul in 2002, Kabul looked like Dresden, but now it's a vibrant city.
Yes, the Taliban can kill people, but most Afghanis are moving ahead with their lives in spite of
this. The problem is that, as we've seen over the last decade, a small minority can keep the country
destabilized. That's what we have to stop. We have to come up with a way of stopping that."
In the wake of Trump's address, credit for its opening paean was given to new White House chief
of staff John Kelly, the retired Marine Corps general who, TAC was told, insisted that Trump use
the speech to walk back the controversy of his remarks on Charlottesville!a suggestion that both
McMaster and Mattis readily agreed to when Trump's national security team met on Friday at Camp David.
In the end, however, it was McMaster and Mattis who had the greatest influence on Trump's thinking.
"There was all this speculation that maybe, just maybe, the president would somehow come around to
getting out," the senior Pentagon civilian with whom we spoke said, "but that was never going to
happen. Jim Mattis wouldn't let it happen. You can see his fingerprints all over this."
Another Pentagon observer had a much different take. "This is Joe Biden's plan, all the way,"
he said, referring to the then-Vice President's recommendation to Obama back in 2009. "Biden said
that we should increase counterterrorism operations, draw down U.S. forces in the provinces, increase
pressure on Pakistan and make a deal with India. Obama said 'no' to the idea, but you can bet Mattis
was listening. This is his plan all the way."
Almost everyone at the Pentagon agrees, though key senior military officers who have been privy
to James Mattis's thinking over the last weeks (but who remain unconvinced by it) provide a cautionary,
and nearly fatalistic, note. "This Trump plan, at least so far as I understand it, sounds a lot like
the kind of plan we've come up with again and again since the end of World War Two," a senior Pentagon
officer says. "We're going to surge troops, reform the government we support and put pressure on
our allies. In this building [the Pentagon] there's a hell of a lot of skepticism. And that's because
we all know what this new strategy really means – and what it means that the only way we can get
out of Afghanistan is to get further in. You know, it seems to me that if there's one thing we've
learned, it's that that doesn't work."
"... Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union. ..."
"... He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster. ..."
"... "If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. ..."
"... In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump. ..."
"... Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing. ..."
"... "Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said. ..."
"... Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today. ..."
"... God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ...... ..."
Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on
U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia.
Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a
resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Bannon was a regular participant in national
security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and
the European Union.
He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly
shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary
James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.
"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say
that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which
he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.
He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the EU and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements.
Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist
British politician Nigel Farage.
"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.
In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop
increase in Afghanistan!a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue
with direct appeals to Trump.
More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in
Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.
Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with
Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.
And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North
Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.
Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to
be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.
Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's
elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for
life-and-death debates.
McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn!a Bannon ally -- as
national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon
resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.
Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using
the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it
could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.
McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.
"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and
senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to
always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.
"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.
Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel
decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for
China and East Asia.
"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.
In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.
And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott
Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.
"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence
on foreign policy," Abrams said.
Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel
disputes with the White House. "Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out --
for better and for worse," Abrams added. Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis
will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team
at Camp David today.
Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon
was more dissenter than policy maker.
Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing
for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend
and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.
"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so
I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."
And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected
in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.
European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump,"
Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."
"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."
As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement,
there would be no hope for moderation..
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election,
Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months.
I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his
acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized
Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals
running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving
and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.
Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high
cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed
to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate
in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they
have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as
it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats"
as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business
side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties,
leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes
a US ally.
It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the
people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food,
customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized
by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.
Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse.
Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet
people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more
correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and
political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers.
Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put
political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'état if you
wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential
candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal
globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he
faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually
Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of
Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his
election promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in
November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began
the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the
process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever
seen had vanished.
While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re
humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and
bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching
bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War
II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after.
The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.
Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council,
Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan
to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its
longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we
failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating
the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a
Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.
Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a
strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged
indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the
certainty as to what will follow when we leave.
When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition
of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of
being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets,
concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final
resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has
been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures
of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.
Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the
West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an
alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely.
Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."
If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not
ruling out preventive war.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that
would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.
America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder
more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay
out of future wars.
America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the
NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal
immigration to
I think that the case of Korea is very different from all the others, but generally I
agree with Mr. Buchanan to the extent that I say: Pat Buchanan for President
Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,
This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he
tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together
economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he
quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so
well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals.
Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are
the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes
but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the
history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its
losses and ran.
The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when
one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the
arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand
the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern
presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he
has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the
failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain
the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the
main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased
out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness
can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed
him in the election.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war
that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America
will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational
and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US
foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is
happy with this chaos is Israel.
For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very
simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys
home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these
soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have
been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the
process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.
No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely
just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over
the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention
of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks
--
Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued
here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he
is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along,
obviously, but still an excellent piece.
To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site
will last long.
Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy)
where our Scott-Pasha resides.
It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever.
We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war.
The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost.
Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day.
Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated.
Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.
I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in
the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for
him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of
violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a
silver lining.
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts.
But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk
in the Oval Office.
Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. That means he's not going to build a
beautiful wall on our southern border.
@KenH I
think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the
oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him
in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
Explore our updated, comprehensive Trump-Russia Timeline -- or select one of the central
players in the Trump-Russia saga to see what we know about them.
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York
Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even
occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of
the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New
York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration
and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page
article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic
National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins
contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially
for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate
"certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary
foundation.
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened
up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies,
however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national
Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then
another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must
be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with
the Jan. 6 "Intelligence
Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal
Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who
called them "hand-picked."
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact,
but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something
to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation,
and precedents."
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012
presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests,
and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.
But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as
gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly,
the Times slipped in a correction
to that falsehood in one article although continuing to
use similar language in subsequent
stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the
source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge.
(This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials
from parties facing accusations.)
Conspiracy Mongering
The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known
only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine.
President Barack Obama and
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott
Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.
Ukraine's SBU security service also has been
implicated in possible
torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing
ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists
and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible –
not even addressing a Dutch/NATO
intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of
the Ukrainian military – and instead
tried to pin the atrocity
on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.
In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged
Russian government hacking operations – is.
The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military
unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like
coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."
Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to
its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."
Lacking Witnesses
The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable"
regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian
government hacking group."
The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real
evidence.
The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian
election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."
The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election
graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly
sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.
But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel
1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made
this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.
So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S.
government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian
propaganda."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but
also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability
within these entities is the VIPS group.
Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --
You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights
for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria
and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.
The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.
And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best
living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news
business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O.
Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that
the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface.
Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?
JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it
is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns
of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.
j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this
site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening
message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to
playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged
event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.
Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative
standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming
narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian)
Ukrainian authorities.
I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam
some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done
an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed
such an independent collection had taken place.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm
It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources
in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of
simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd
claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes
all others to be greater fools.
The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism,
white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from
the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the
glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next? "Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address
in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.
I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman
Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have
its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere.
So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.
Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts,
it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must
be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.
Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance
on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm
At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later
cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff
were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the
mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs
with that administration.
Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm
There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump.
Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion
and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's
ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind
of accommodation.
Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm
It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard
questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in
their desperate desire to bring down Trump.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when
there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.
*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow,
FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings
and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm
But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.
Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying,
and I also believe it's a valid point.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made
sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish
I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.
If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile
to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last
couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't
take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.
Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm
All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously
that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over
Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable,
but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their
number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance
their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if
he is ever going to be impeached.
turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline
of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.
Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has
corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical,
these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated
with the Russian government to throw the election? No.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.
I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:
"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya
"
Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody
would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's
email maneuvers.
The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- --
-- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards
than men.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump
and Putin apologists.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."
Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official
Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from
you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm
He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm
I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning
an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.
LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am
So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative.
Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption,
is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with
Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence
on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association,
give us a heads-up on where and what it is.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm
WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections
to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm
That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.
Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists,
only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies.
It's shockingly ignored here.
Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network
not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist
and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning
the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA
is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers
but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually
read it).
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm
BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were
lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the
West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are,
never really learnt the art you are describing.
May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not
dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm
If your mind is open like a sieve.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm
The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents
the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from
many sources.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville
e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat
alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official'
narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight
to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian
into the presidency.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance
to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.
Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't
a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of
a person .now go mimic me you clown.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.
"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.
"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm
BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the
state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the
most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who
these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am
What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract
from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of
accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore
dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking
of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is
a cheap parlor trick.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am
BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand
your evidence, not propaganda.
DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am
"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"
All that's missing is evidence.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other
newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.
It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added
the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in
conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while
casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite
a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being
touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would
be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.
Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in
the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties
is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump
is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the
2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain)
orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?
Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant
know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.
Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not,
at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person,
with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other
words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things
you do with your rude comments.
It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to
grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm
Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply
not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from
some stolen land in Israel.
Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.
As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test
this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted
sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.
Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".
According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double
checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.
They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia
is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out
of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to
disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The
deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.
By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever?
I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored
that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.
You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for
the others who may find interest in it as well.
I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm
You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise
violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly
clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with
reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What
we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since
the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is
now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing
to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves,
but for them, the ends justifies the means.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble
holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they
might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world
and people are complex, not neatly black or white.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm
I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby
Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that
if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the
election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's
basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their
lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President
is a crook, as well as a racist.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were,
did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations
which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare?
Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries
were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about
those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention
our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take
a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison
population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.
I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly,
and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.
"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing
Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed
on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and
experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could
-- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's
for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived
racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration
policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans
don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there
is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more
then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think
that's a good thing --
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm
Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.
You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."
By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair
Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives
are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm
My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she.
He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and
will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --
"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."
The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering
under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they
resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances.
They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval
and uncertainty.
To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather
is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan
who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).
Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess
it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets
to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Too close to call.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm
From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."
What would that evidentiary foundation be?
Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking
the DNC.
Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."
Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.
Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.
Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.
Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.
Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:
Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–
"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.
Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of
the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?
He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?
Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?
Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike,
shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either
a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.
"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.
The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among
others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.
John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm
America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become
an uncontrollable wildfire
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful
IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction.
If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore
than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to
protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm
No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove
of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations
of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.
If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period,
where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."
The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm
What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been
in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and
intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons
to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am
Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political
implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public
even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence"
has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.
I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with
the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure
method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other
safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny,
a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm
By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I
wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and
useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely
the chronological presentation of factual events.
That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm
I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in
this time-line that offers evidence.
Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.
Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want
to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.
Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well
as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.
I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm
That's why I'm outraged.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your
squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates?
To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits
twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Oops, Parry.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm
Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.
Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm
"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"
Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this
claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think
your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.
Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:
This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the
book):
This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long
but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of
perusing:
We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had,
but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read
regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of
minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried
about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not
the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able
to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority
losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best
hope .attitude is altitude.
I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am
Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when
there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into
the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.
With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled"
labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell
curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?
It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about
the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start
banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation
can maintain a cheap labor force?
Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you
miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.
Cheers, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am
You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.
For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't
believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all
I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's
political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her
historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.
Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down,
which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful
nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you
what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced
this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.
Thanks for your response. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am
Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not
being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially
in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point
that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out
their concerns.
What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric
they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing,
as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious
too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.
Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those
who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country,
then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your
guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with
enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe
they just didn't care enough to do something about it.
So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people
who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their
back on you.
I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going
on inside my head, with these important issues.
Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am
"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with
whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.
I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern
Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump
is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda
thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously
contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him).
I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.
Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators.
They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared,
fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future.
Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They
can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation,
certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most
who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half
the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators
in the street.
Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site
do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't
have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many
of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and
they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.
If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back
jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes
alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in
Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs
in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped?
If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers
than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.
When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed
plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better
with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll
kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring
peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism
will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures.
(I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race
family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make
a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am
Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers.
This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.
The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that
compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be
cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched
by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.
It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to
help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing
decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am
Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice
sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened
that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group.
We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the
existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this
new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override
human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to
Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.
Good comment as always Sam. Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm
You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The
robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race
goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity)
and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage
following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one
will even remember we personally ever existed.
Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall)
will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this
era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to
honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve
as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S.
Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive,
so insane?"
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am
I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that
our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations
who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching
the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's
beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself.
Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.
The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing.
What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead
we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe
that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human
evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that
weren't known then become known.
It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at
his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office,
but your point is well made.
Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate
the voter, if anything is to get better.
Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote
any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.
I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class
and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.
Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am
Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am
Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm
Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading
your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am
Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I
do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll
hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm
"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"
With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am
Realist – excellent post. Thank you.
exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am
At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of
propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda
lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was
published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied
to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am
exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers
used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.
Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia
State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you
probably would have believed McAuliffe.
"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe
claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.
"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.
McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who
"had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe
said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the
street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."
All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?
To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy,
all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians
should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am
Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am
Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about
these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:
"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however,
is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.
When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.
There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes
end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.
What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle
well at all.
In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically
obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can
be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class
operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert
knowledge to do so. [ ]
But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is
that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack"
at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later
to make it look like Russians.
And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.
PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged
into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached.
Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata
times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did
it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.
Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through
them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."
Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am
"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am
Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly
coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read
that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which
him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar
may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.
I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although,
these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings
with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought
us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy
nut paper, and there go I.
Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer
money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe
Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends
the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain
against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes,
is your ticket to the complaint window.
What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election,
which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.
As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.
Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.
Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.
Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am
Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever
other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove
Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt".
DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more
than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom.
The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem
to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?
Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not
in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.
That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.
And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping
tree-hugger.
Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm
A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.
Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public,
large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election,
but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would
win. You can read original piece here:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get
But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for
Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never
consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves
into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times,
which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article
doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that
she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing
the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over
Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.
Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary
Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back
then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then
a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.
In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out
the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted
and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.
As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.
Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "
Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be
revealed with the evidence "
So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which
the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough
to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.
That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people
dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate
loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after
this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens
may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.
Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed
employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real
source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them
enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct
source or location, etc.
If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is
not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy
making.
Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog
-- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the
internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors.
The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the
timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must
go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting
to publish truth about "Russia gate"
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting
with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran
it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact
he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.
Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am
President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied
folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder
how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely
happen to them.
Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible"
evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print
GR Editor's Note
This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.
In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored
military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.
In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.
This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist
organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.
In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017
******************
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.
(* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.
Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am
Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet
to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling
a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth
Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
– Crooked Hillary
Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm
There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries
'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game
attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.
All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec
companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC
servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.
That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore
the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.
And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who
sees Russian under every PC.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm
I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact,
from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.
Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE,
let alone the Russian government.
Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look
at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business
hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?
The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE
for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has
access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that
kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.
Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator
specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking
from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be
faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)
The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes
good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an
entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.
And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI
report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC
documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it
to transfer them to Wikileaks.
Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack"
story completely.
Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:
1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the
DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."
If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election"
story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.
Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point.
I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet
because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left
any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.
Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration
testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's
assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails.
In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence
except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.
Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF
except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal
hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.
It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to
buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC
hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.
You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election,
and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.
In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of
hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building
in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies
can be reliably identified by attribution.
Instead, what we get is the following:
1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST
BE a "nation state actor."
2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED
to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE
entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)
3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."
An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification
for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET
of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.
In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting,
and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the
hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.
The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive".
Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.
Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies
a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.
Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses
and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get
away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.
At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack
even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government.
And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Correction to my post:
"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"
now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral
thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing
trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political
gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
August 19, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating.
Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now
literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy
too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction
outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.
Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine
does, you're doing something wrong.
By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter:
@Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at
openDemocracy
On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist
counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer
rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national
crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist,
neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.
As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the
so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often
outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in
the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential
or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions".
The most egregious example is
Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch
is the
most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people,
with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals,
events and institutions) be investigated.
Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant
Molly McKew
and Jim Ludes of
the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost
word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia."
These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections"
or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that
they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials
and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply
for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.
Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although
in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select
group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's
presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated
and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.
So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations
of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a
divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was
once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is
unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD
from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure
in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media
where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon",
this connection is often enough to be declared the
smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .
Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground
occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a
radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor"
and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed
his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't
accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.
In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology
of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific,
obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students
mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw
was Dugin's interview where
he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages
of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department,
were promptly fired after a major media scandal.
Later, Dugin was quite
unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing,
reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with
the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared
from the network's website.
Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations,
it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings
are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just
wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes
against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early
20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with
Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.
Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their
brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These
have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as
Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught
in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies,
intensified efforts to strengthen those links .
In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting
its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like
Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious
right.
Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a
major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint
Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist"
Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement,
and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly
shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned
above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power
enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities
banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily
sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.
There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events
in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown
issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil
-- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded
Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian
influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It
distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated
questions.
Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming
the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same
thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.
"... Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them. ..."
"... With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life. ..."
Mid-day, mainstream media proclaimed stocks were up because of the firing. Stocks closed the
day down. Apparently, stocks were both up and down due to Bannon.
Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down
institutions -- not work inside them.
With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious
assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning
his wrath on the White House itself.
Hours after his ouster from the West Wing, he was named to his former position of executive
chairman at the hard-charging right-wing website and led its evening editorial meeting. And Mr.
Bannon appeared eager to move onto his next fight.
"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda
President Trump ran on," he said Friday. "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war
with."
Among those already in Mr. Bannon's sights: Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Senator Mitch McConnell,
the majority leader; the president's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and
Gary D. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who now directs the White House's National
Economic Council.
Thanks But No Thanks
Trump thanked Bannon for his help during the campaign, but not for his tenure in the White
House
I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against
Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S
The New York Times editorial,
Exit Steve
Bannon
, gave Banon a swift kick on his way out the door.
Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right
Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come
to life.
But Mr. Bannon, who promptly returned to Breitbart as its executive chairman on Friday,
still poses a danger for our broader politics. Outside the White House, he is freer to rally
his forces against anyone who doesn't toe his nationalist-protectionist line. A Bannon-led
right-wing backlash against Mr. Trump, who unleashed the worst impulses of nationalists in
service to himself, would be a fitting comeuppance.
More Fun to Throw Mud
Clearly, it's far more fun to throw mud than have it thrown at you.
Lost in the Bannon and Trump bashing is one key question: Who is really the bigger threat,
Hillary, Trump, or Bannon?
Why We Are Where We Are
We are in this mess because Obamanomics, war-mongering, Fed policies, and social handouts
created a budget mess but did not solve any problems. People revolted, and Trump got
elected.
When it comes to trade and protectionism, Trump is wrong. So is Bannon.
We would have a no-fly zone over Syria, had Hillary won. That would have risked a
confrontation with Russia. Hillary wrecked Libya, and of course Obama and Bush had extremely
misguided warmongering policies in the Mideast.
Obamacare was a failure, but no one on either side seems able or willing to fix it.
So here we are, with everything broken, and we still cannot get anything done. Republicans
want more military spending and Democrats want more social spending. Warmongers on both sides
want more war.
Art of Compromise
Compromise in Washington is more military spending and more social spending.
Repetitive "compromises" sent deficits soaring out of sight. On top of it all, the Fed blew
massive bubbles in just about everything.
Problems Too Big and Too Many To Fix
One thing I expect Trump will get right, at least from a public union standpoint, regards
appointments to the supreme court.
Overall, I hoped Trump would do better on many fronts. It was not to be. Trump could not
drain the swamp. Partisan politics interfered, there was too much infighting, and there is
nonsensical Russia bashing on both sides of the aisle.
The problems are too big and too many to fix. If you think Hillary would have fixed them you
are delusional
To the victor, goes the blame. Trump will be the fall guy when this mess blows up.
https://t.co/99d7BrUfak
Trump is an obnoxious and racist man but he is POTUS with a business sense. We should
hope that he can bring jobs and factories back.
Don't look to him for moral guidance.
If, however, he decides to call an end to US military operations in Afghanistan, then
he may win over quite a few on the anti-war folks on both left and right.
Trumptards in full blown aids denial! Fucking morons! The urine faced Messiah owns the
entire US economy because he has publicly stated that the economy is booming DIRECTLY DUE
TO HIS POLICIES! Y'all are delusional stupid Satanists(rather typical for racist
bigots).
The 50's and 60's are gone, and they are never coming back; neither are manufacturing
jobs you can raise a whole family on. That is the farce of this whole thing. Trump made
many people believe they could, so they voted for him.
I've always been impressed by the irony: All in the Family and Barney Miller telling
us how shitty everything was, when that was the best it was ever gonna be.....well, OK,
it was foreshadowing and some of the writing was on the wall.....women entering the
workforce not as Mary Tyler Moore wanting to, but because the one-income household was
dying (being killed).
THEM is at most about 5000 people inside the DC Beltway-and about another 3000-5000K
mostly in LA/Boston/NY.
THEM has no idea of the whoop-ass waiting for them if they continue to ignore and
impede the will of the American People -temporarily and at the moment expressed through
Donald Trump.
Well yeah but in a different sort of way. I was a teenager in the 70's. Music and
Movies were great. Ecoomy sucked. I remember standing in line on odd licesne plates days
to get gas. I remember that idiot Jimmy Carter as President. I remember watching the fall
of Saigon on TV. I remember the "misery index" when mortgage interest and inflation
exceeded 21 percent.
I remember all of that but I also remember being able to drink a beer legally while
driving down the road and DWI were half the occurence you hear about now. Rarely heard of
anything bad happening to kids and the thrill of feeling a girl up and driving around my
truck, working in my Dad's shop.
We didnt have this social justice bullshit and most everyone got along. In my 4 years
of High school I only saw 1 girl that got knocked up and had to have her baby away from
school. My wife told me the schools she visit as part of her job,they have to have a
daycare for the 30-40 some odd babies that need care. Kids have to have these fidget
spinners so they dont get bored in school. Most schools are overrun with 3rd world
central american kids that cant speak english or read, who dont want to be there and who
cant wait to join a gang. Meanwhile they are cussing out and assaulting the teachers who
have to spend half their time babysitting.
We didnt consistently elect sociopaths into elected office
This country had a bad time in then 70's but we are completely fucked now
1913 Treasonous Wilson trumps the 1971 treasoonous Nixon, who both would have been
tyros compared to Hillary. All Quislings can be seen by photograpic display wherever they
hang pictures of presidents, from Lincoln onwards.
All those manufacturing jobs will come back as soon as Americans can figure out how to
live in America on the purchasing power equivalent of $5,000, as manufacturing workers do
in China. This is the natural outcome of a system that regards labor as nothing more than
a cost to be cut.
It's not hard to figure out how to live on 5k. Just eat only rice and live four to a
room. Use a bicycle everywhere you go. Work three jobs, 18 hours per day. Buy one shirt
and wear it for 30 years. No phone, no internet, no a/c, no heat. No medical or dental
care. No pets.
I like your optimism. It sounds pretty good compared to what we will actually be able
to afford when the fiat goes hyperinflationary supernova and all us plebes net worth goes
negative from tax liens.
When your reduce this down further, if you are white, you are either a racist (voting
Trump) or a reformed racist carrying massive white guilt for your genetic racist
predisposition AND your white privilege (voting for ANY democrat/socialist).
Oh, and if you procreated using natural biology, you are a homophobic general hater
and miscreant.
It's not easy being white, which is sad given that from the black perspective it's not
easy being black either. Tough world.
Could it be the race baiting divisive haters of all mankind that simply want to see us
ALL at our end?
Good stuff. Well not good stuff, but you know what I mean.
Nailed it ..
Identity politics, a term that is generally misleading.
It is MIS-IDENTITY politics, a real life "game" of obfuscation, a way to avoid real
issues of our time, like getting increasingly bent over by centralized everything, avoid
common cause, national interests, a way to "pigeon hole" make separate, divide, water
down, weaken all cultures in order that all peoples, races, colors, creeds, have
something other than the true source of their troubles to blame, in forced compliance and
subserviance to the aims and wishes of said "centralized" power .. and in particular, the
money power, where all manner of shit stirring emanates, and all evil, resides.
So far, it appears to be working extrordinarliy well ..
Yeah, tear down that Robert E Lee statue, that ought to "fix things" right up ..
And lets not forget. It's not just about removing symbols offensive to snowflakes,
it's about demonstrating POWER....that they can DO THIS against all of our
complaints....complaints falling on deaf ears.
I saw this years back with homosexuals. For years they hid their proclivities from the
public eye, but once they were fully outed and it became a cause celebre, they were in
the streets, bare assed chaps, hugging, groping, kissing, NOT because they wanted to do
these things but because they wanted to rub it in the faces of all those they
despised.
This is NOT about ideology, it is about POWER, and those wanting power will use any
ideology to get it.
I don't think Trump is a racist. He has a low opinion of some people probably based on
business experiences like rentals. Probably based on income status rather than color -
that's how his brain thinks. And, I agree, if he pulls the plug on Afghanistan that's
good at home, good with Russia/China, bad for CIA/McCain.
In 2008
Trump took care of Jennifer Hudson
when her relatives were brutally murdered. He put
her up for free in his hotel and looked out for her. She took everything he gave her and
was very grateful. Doesn't look rayciss to me.....
People use the word "racist" to denigrate, to minimize and devalue a person as
something lower, less than....the same way people used the word "nigger". Words are used
not only to communicate ideas but to also inflict pain and to dehumanize. Eventually,
this will evolve to the combined use of "racist nigger" and come full circle.
At some point we will just have accept the term HUMAN as a derogatory putdown, but
will probably have to wait for robots to come self aware....but maybe not. There is an
awful lot of self hate going around and the touchy feely people are pushing to extend
human rights to animals, so I fully expect a demotion any day now.
I quite clearly have seen nothing racist about Trump. The MSM has taken incidents and
words out of context with every attempt to make Trump appear racist...but I do not see
it. can you plz post a few explicit examples that bring you to this conclusion? TIA
No problem is too big to fix. We the people wanted a wrecking ball, and that is
exactly what Trump will become if he finds he is unable to fix the current system from
within.
Sadly, we are not fighting an ideology that can be debated, dissected and analyzed.
What we are fighting is a system of corruption that provides for dependency, and no
amount of logic or proof will drive people away from their meal ticket. Further, we have
suffered generations of self hatred and guilt ridden indoctrination that literally
dissolves the stiffened spine.
They have spent many years preaching to blacks that trying to get ahead was useless in
a white man's world and telling the whites that they were responsible for the universal
ills of the world. And we wonder why we are now here.
If our government were actually the parents they claim to be, they would be in jail
for child abuse.
Only problem is that President Trump is Teflon. Nothing will stick. The anit-trumpites
hate Trump but that's all they know. President Trump did not create any of our nation's
problems. The DO-NOTHING Congress is going to take the fall.
Indeed, the harder he fights against them the more support he'll get. There are many
cards he can play but how hard he'll fight is anybody's guess. So far not nearly as much
as I'd like.
The blues and reds are never gonna work with the guy.
As disgusting as it is for me to say, once elected we are of no value to Trump's
agenda beyond the threat of civil disobedience we represent if he is ever forcibly
removed. we can HOPE for a chance to vote against for some lesser evil, but those choices
are narrowing quickly. We COULD react financially, effectively boycotting those financial
elements most directly working towards Trump's demise, but those financial consequences
would be blamed upon Trump, upon his failure of leadership.
Unfortunately for those of us who have preached nonviolence for years, I think we have
always known it would come to this, and I believe it is a losing hand, because I believe
it is what they always actually wanted.
Conservatives, even those simply defending the constitution, will (and currently ARE)
branded as terrorists, and the full force of this corrupt government will come to bear.
It will be the end of more than just our constitution....much more.
But we do have the threat of violence, and for some that might be enough for Trump to
stay in place, but do not underestimate the hopes and desires of the evil fucks who want
to control it ALL. Let us hope that violence does NOT break out from the conservative
side, because it will be the end.
To a certain extent Bannon firing was his own foult as perchant for self-promition proved to be quite destructive.
But it was also a stage of Trump conversion into Bush
III. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The problem that brought Trump
to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable
within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version
of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff.
And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks
doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump
can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells
us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote
in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough.
But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in
his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?
It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when
it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a
battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.
Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it
in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that
cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about
accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself
into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter
and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence
than the current White House occupant.
Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize
his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion
to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy
was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility
would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care
mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.
He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House,
the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's
white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial
base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis,
and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.
Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for
years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed
in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider
some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.
Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge
as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border,
and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all,
according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship
or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans.
But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and
illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe.
He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and
seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President
Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies.
He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and
he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In
all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed
to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital
interests.
Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an
automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly
China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the
country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that
had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.
The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what
allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but
only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing
one.
He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed
way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied
his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's
nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro,
his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement
in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction
of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.
In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans
to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative
is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan
had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program).
And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.
What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president
to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion
a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where
he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In
a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness
for a game of political checkers.
And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented
Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies
during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment
message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the
Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these
people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful
governance.
It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such
a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path
to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within
West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency
respected.
But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top
of the global power structure, is winging it.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor
of The American Conservative . His next book,
President McKinley: Architect of the American Century
, is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.
Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.
If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to
improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some
time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more
prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde
meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.
Oracle of Kypseli
Occident Mortal
Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are
starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend
into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but
perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.
The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of
political correcteness and feel good predisposition.
The history of western investment in third world resources does not
make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver
mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused
of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.
The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and
British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the
resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but
a degraded environment and mammoth debt.
The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at
cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.
"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the
actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with
it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have
all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they
now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,
True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult
period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US independence etc).
...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through
industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications,
ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...
This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted
in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre
war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to
oust Brit influence.
edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"
all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning
experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."
This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical
capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental
universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the
West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love
to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than
USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.
My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the
world squirms.....
Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....
Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this
a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....
Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country
back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want
nor understand the concept of moving forward.
Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.
Kobe Beef
Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM
Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there
would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.
The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than
the coming century.
The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is
huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to
be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so
far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far,
with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still
have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.
But back to the topic at hand..
Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.
The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources.
Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move
forward.
The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature.
Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.
Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in
peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already
in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.
"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair
intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized,
these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth.
They couldn't have been more wrong..."
Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World
Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that
the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold
fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout
Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's
best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation
through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless
"shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern
oil.
John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...
Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --
I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,
'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains
that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.
I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for
wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any
economy.
Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have
worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"
This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling
of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets,
followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.
This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.
I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??
Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native
criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and
pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of
like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom
from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.
You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant
at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from
the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology,
astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......
Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.
Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world
and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....
Globalists here means neoliberals and often neocons.
That means that Trump administration has strong neocon/neolib "fifth column" -- the "enemy within" that tries to mold him into Republican
version of Obama -=- professional "bait and switch" artists with his fake slogan "Change we can believe in".
Obama simply used anti-racism as a tool to further his own image. His actions while in office proved beyond a doubt that he certainly
never gave a damn about racism. All he ever did was pay lip service to anti-racism ideals. He was about as trustworthy as a snake.
Notable quotes:
"... The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal" forces. ..."
"... "Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said one Bannon ally. ..."
A number of conservatives expressed fury and dismay on Friday after news broke that President Trump has parted ways with his chief
strategist, Stephen Bannon.
Bannon is a hero on the right and credited with harnessing Trump's message of economic populism during the campaign.
The chief strategist had been involved in a nasty tug-of-war with what his allies view as the "globalist" wing of the White
House, represented by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and national security adviser
H.R. McMaster.
On Friday, conservatives lashed out at what they viewed as Trump selling out his base and surrendering to those "liberal"
forces.
"I'm very upset," said Tea Part activist Debbie Dooley. "The deep state globalists won. They forced out Steve Bannon. I had a
'CNN is fake news protest' scheduled for tomorrow at their headquarters in Atlanta that I'm canceling because I'm so disheartened.
It's a betrayal of his base. I'll continue to support Trump and his policies but I'll no longer be on the front lines defending him."
There are rumors that Bannon could be headed back to Breitbart News, where as chairman he is credited with turning the outlet
into a right-wing juggernaut.
Breitbart has been explicitly pro-Trump since the GOP presidential primaries and has vigorously defended the president through
his tumultuous first months in office. Regional editors at the internet publication made clear that their loyalties lie with Bannon
over Trump. There are some fears among Trump allies that Bannon could wreak havoc on the administration from outside of the White
House.
For months, Breitbart has been running attacks against Kushner, Cohn and McMaster in an effort to boost Bannon's standing in the
West Wing. The sense of urgency to protect Bannon grew after McMaster ousted several of Bannon's allies from the national security
council.
Now, with Bannon gone, his allies are cutting loose.
"Steve's allies in the populist nationalist movement are ready to ride to the gates of hell with him against the West Wing
Democrats and globalists like [national security aide] Dina Powell, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster," said
one Bannon ally.
"They should all be very worried that their efforts to undermine the president will be exposed. If they think what's happened
with Steve is rough, wait until they see what he does outside the White House," the ally said.
Last week, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, spoke to Trump, urging him not to fire
Bannon, GOP sources said.
A senior White House official told The Hill that the president had been inundated in recent days from "high-level Republican donors
and activists" pleading with the president to keep Bannon on.
With both Bannon and former chief of staff Reince Priebus out, "a lot of GOP lawmakers are confused and nervous about who they
are supposed to talk to in the administration," said one GOP source. "They both did the bulk of Hill outreach."
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naďve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes.
Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.
Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy
initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the
Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides
from freelancing.
"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.
Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naďve
political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise.
The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Kelly.
Watching the last Presidential debate was a rather depressing experience. I thought that
Trump did pretty well, but that really is not the point here. The point is this: no matter who
wins, an acute crisis is inevitable.
Option one : Hillary wins. That's Obama on steroids, only worse. Remember that Obama himself
was Dubya, only worse. Of course, Dubya was just Clinton, only worse. Now the circle is closed.
Back to Clinton. Except this time around, we have a women who is deeply insecure, who failed at
every single thing that she every tried to do, and who now has a 3 decades long record of
disasters and failures. Even when she had no authority to start a war, she started one (told
Bill to bomb the Serbs). Now she has that authority. And now she had to stand there, in front
of millions of people, and hear Trump tell her "
Putin outsmarted you at every step of the
way
" (did you see her frozen face when he said that?). Trump is right, Putin did outsmart
her and Obama at every step. The problem is that now, after having a President with an
inferiority complex towards Putin (Obama) we will have a President with the very same
inferiority complex and a morbid determination to impose a no-fly zone over Russian forces in
Syria. Looking at Hillary, with her ugly short hair and ridiculous pants, I thought to myself
"this is a woman who is trying hard to prove that she is every bit as tough and any man"
– except of course that she ain't. Her record also shows her as being weak, cowardly and
with a sense of total impunity. And now, that evil
messianic lunatic
with a
deep-seated inferiority complex is going to become Commander in Chief?! God help us all!
Option two : Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total,
repeat total , control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From
Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three
letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid
"
crazies in
the basement
"? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from
actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned
their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an
easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose
and they will fight to the very last one. What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if
he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team?
How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he
is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump
will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he
will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has
both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence.
Et voilà
--
I see only one way out:
The (imperfect) Putin model
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as
the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives. The big difference is that, unlike what is happening with Trump,
the Russian version of the US Neocons never saw the danger coming from Putin. He was selected
by the ruling elites as the representative of the security services to serve along a
representative of the big corporate money, Medvedev. This was a compromise solution between the
only two parts of the Russian society which were still functioning, the security services and
oil/gas money. Putin looked like a petty bureaucrat in an ill fitting suit, a shy and somewhat
awkward little guy who would present no threat to the powerful oligarchs of the
semibankirshchina
(the Seven Bankers) running Russia. Except that he turned out to be one of the most formidable
rulers in Russia history. Here is what Putin did as soon as he came to power:
First, he re-established the credibility of the Kremlin with the armed forces and security
services by rapidly and effectively crushing the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnia. This
established his personal credibility with the people he would have to rely on to deal with the
oligarchs.
Second, he used the fact that everybody, every single businessman and corporation in Russia,
did more or less break the law during the 1990s, if only because there really was no law.
Instead of cracking down on the likes of Berezovski or Khodorkovski for their political
activities, he crushed them with (absolutely true) charges of corruption. Crucially, he did
that very publicly, sending a clear message to the other arch-enemy: the media.
Third, contrary to the hallucinations of the western human rights agencies and Russian
liberals, Putin never directly suppressed any dissent, or cracked down on the media or, even
less so, ordered the murder of anybody. He did something much smarter. Remember that modern
journalists are first and foremost presstitutes, right? By mercilessly cracking down on the
oligarchs Putin deprived the presstitutes of their source of income and political support. Some
emigrated to the Ukraine, others simply resigned, and a few were left like on a reservation or
a zoo on a few very clearly identifiable media outlets such as Dozhd TV, Ekho Moskvy Radio or
the newspaper Kommersant. Those who emigrated became irrelevant, as for those who stayed in the
"liberal zoo" – they were harmless has they had no credibility left. Crucially, everybody
else "got the message". After that, all it took is the appointment a few real patriots (such as
Dmitri Kiselev, Margarita Simonian and others) in key positions and everybody quickly
understood that the winds of fortune had now turned.
Fourth, once the main media outlets were returned back to sanity it did not take too long
for the "liberal" (in the Russian sense, meaning pro-USA) parties to enter into a death-spiral
from which they have never recovered. That, in turn, resulted in the ejection of all "liberals"
form the Duma which now has only 4 parties, all of them more or less "patriotic".
That's the part that worked.
So far, Putin failed to eject the 5th columnists, whom I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(for details, including their names, see
here
) from the government itself.. Even the
notorious
Alexei
Kudrin
was not fired by Putin, but by Medvedev. The security services succeeded in finally
getting rid of
Anatolii Serdyukov
but they did not have
power needed to put him in jail. I still think that
a purge will happen
while
Alexander Mercouris
disagrees
. Whatever may be the case, what is certain is that Putin has not tackled the 5th
columnists in the banking/finance sector and that the latter have being very careful not to
give him a pretext to take action against them.
Russia and the USA are very different countries, and no recipe can be simply copied from one
to another. Still, there are valuable lessons from the "Putin model" for Trump, not the least
of which that his most formidable enemies probably are sitting in the Fed. One Russian analyst
– Rostislav Ishchenko – has suggested that Trump could somehow force the Fed to
increase interest rates, which would result in a bankruptcy domino effect for US banks which
might be the only way to finally crush the Fed and re-take control of US banking. Maybe. I
honestly am not qualified to have an opinion about that.
What is sure is that for the time being the USA will continue to look like that:
A homeless man, possibly a veteran, has built a "corridor of flags" to get people to give
him money. Florida, October 2016.
Rich on cheapo patriotism and otherwise poor.
Hillary thinks that this is a stunning success. Trump thinks that this is a disgrace. I
submit that the choice between these two is really very simple.
To those who are saying that there cannot be a schism in the AngloZionist elites, I will
reply that the example of the
conspiracy to prevent Dominique
Strauss-Kahn from becoming the next French President
shows that, just like hyenas,
AngloZionist leaders do sometimes turn on each other. That happens in all regimes, regardless
of their political ideology (think SS against SA in Nazi Germany or Trotskists against
Stalinists in Boshevik USSR).
Of brooms and body parts
Leon Trotsky used to say the Soviet Russia needed to be cleansed from anarchists and
noblemen with an "iron broom". He even wrote an article in the Pravda entitled "We need an iron
broom". Another genocidal manic, Felix Derzhinskii, founder of the notorious ChK secret police,
used to say that a secret police officer must have a "burning heart, a cool head and clean
hands". One would seek weakness, or even compassion, in vain from folks like these. These are
ideology-driven "true believers", sociopaths with no sense of empathy, profoundly evil people
with a genocidal hatred of anybody standing in their way.
Hillary Clinton and her gang of Neocons are the spiritual (and sometimes even physical)
successors of the Soviet Bolsheviks and they, just like their Bolshevik forefathers, will not
hesitate for a second to crush their enemies. Donald Trump – assuming he is for real and
actually means what he says – has to understand that and do what Putin did: strike first
and strike hard. Stalin, by the way, also did exactly that, and for a while the Trotskyists
were crushed, but in the years following Stalin's death they gradually bounced back only to
seize power again in 1991 (not Trotskyists in a literal sense of the word, but russophobic Jews
who had nothing but contempt for the Russian people). I think that the jury is still out on
whether Putin will succeed in finally removing the 5th columnist from power. What is sure is
that Russia is at least semi-free from the control of these people and that the US is their
last bastion right now. Their maniacal hatred of Trump can in part be explained by the sense of
danger these folks feel, being threatened for the first time in what they see as their homeland
(I don't mean that in a patriotic sense – but rather like a parasite care for "his"
host). And maybe they have some good reason to fear. I sure hope that they do.
I am rather encouraged by the way Trump handled the latest attempt to make him cower in
fear. Yesterday Trump dared to declare that since the election might be rigged or stolen he
does not pledge to recognize their outcome. And even though every semi-literate person knows
that elections in the USA have been rigged and stolen in the past, including Presidential ones,
by saying that Trump committed a major case of
crimethink
. The Ziomedia pounced on
him with self-righteous outrage and put immense pressure on him to retract his statement
(which, by the way, contradicted Pence's stance). Instead of rolling over and recanting his
"crime", Trump replied with this:
Beautiful no? Let's hope he continues to show the same courage.
Trump is doing now what Jean-Marie Le Pen did in France: he is showing the Neocons that be
that he dares to openly defy them, that he refuses to play by their rules, that their outrage
has no effect on his and that they don't get to censor or, even less so, silence him. That is
also what he did when, yet again, he refused to accuse the Russians of cyber-attacks and,
instead, repeated that it would be a good thing for Russia and the USA to be friends. Again, I
am not sure that how long he will be able to hold that line, but for the time being there is no
denying that he is openly defying the AngloZionist deep state and Empire.
Conclusion
The United States are about to enter what might possibly be the deepest and most dangerous
crisis of their history. If Trump is elected, he will have to immediately launch a well-planned
attack against his opponents without giving them any pretext to accuse him of politically
motivated repressions. In Russia, Putin could count on the support of the military and the
security services. I don't know whom Trump can count on, but I am fairly confident that there
are still true patriots in the US armed forces. If Trump gets the right person to head the FBI,
he might also use that agency to clean house and deliver a steady streams of indictments for
corruption, conspiracy to [fill the blank], abuse of authority, obstruction of justice and
dereliction of duty, etc. Since such crimes are widespread in the current circles of power,
they are also easy to prove and cracking down on corruption would get Trump a standing ovation
from the American people. Next, just as Putin in Russia, Trump will have to deal with the
media. How exactly, I don't know. But he will have to face this beast and defeat it. At every
step in this process he will have to get the proactive support of the people, just like Putin
does. Can he do it?
I don't know. Honestly, I doubt it. First, I still don't trust him. But, more relevantly, I
would argue that to overthrow the deep state and restore true people power is even harder in
the USA than it was in Russia. I have always believed that the AngloZionist Empire will have to
be brought down from the outside, most probably by a combination of military and economic
defeats. I still believe that. However, I might be wrong – in fact, I hope that I am
– and maybe Trump will be the guy to bring down the Empire in order to save the United
States. If there is such a possibility, however slim, I think that we have to believe in it and
act on it as all the alternatives are far worse.
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
August 18, 2017 "
Information Clearing House
" - The political
opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his
alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer"
of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment
proceedings.
Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is
vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington
Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the
intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president.
Former CIA
chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security
risk".
This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have
lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay
equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville,
Virginia, were deplorable.
However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer
seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy
new pretext for ousting him from office.
The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because
the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven
months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and
anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian
interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him
out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.
Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed
that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's
victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been
produced to support that sensational claim.
Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress
continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special
prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his
investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.
Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of
evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian
patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being
seen as ridiculous hoaxers.
A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy
article
in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a
cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American
company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed
monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a
global leader in new technology and communications.
According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is
the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant
transformation".
Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider
information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to
its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box
for subverting US democracy".
On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is
an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US
election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of
unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National
Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging
information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.
"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently
the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from
the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also
rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered
through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was
sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".
Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the
hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from
think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.
Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the
alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal
underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine
Western democracy.
Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence
apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend
together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and
creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir
Putin and his allies".
This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative
terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The
Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is
supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.
Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western
democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.
With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and
destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest
challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".
The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides
nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a
supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really
does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.
Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by
a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group
wrote
to
President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via
the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the
information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC
offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not
have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information
obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded
over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.
It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence
and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig
Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the
dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not
hacked.
In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for
seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.
Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details
on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump
into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads
out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.
Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible
former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a
hoax.
The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for
alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to
get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the
emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election
campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a
Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.
The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated
campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi
sympathizer".
Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in
their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way
that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing
Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more
dangerous American fascists are?
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
"... Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors! Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views, policy and go along what msm/deep state wants. ..."
"... These moves clearly show how isolated he really is ..."
"... We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and bad situation. ..."
"... The US has a military junta in control These are people Trump picked - they were not imposed on him. The people that got Trump elected out lived there usefulness ..."
"... If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting. Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc). ..."
"... The war we feared Clinton would bring is now on the horizon. Apparently it was only delayed, not prevented. ..."
"... So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go. ..."
"... Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into the hands of the Globalists. ..."
"... Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining the swamp'. ..."
"... A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people who can act as the foundations of the new administration. ..."
"... With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration. ..."
"... Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy patrons that he didn't mean a word of it. ..."
"... Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign. THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like the promises of a car salesman... ..."
"... The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges.. ..."
"... Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss. Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been much healthier for the rest of the world. ..."
"... Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret the last anti-Israel voice in the White House. ..."
"... This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea." ..."
"... Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc) ..."
"... I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists and critics of Trump won't dont like this view. ..."
"... if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either.. ..."
"... firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on. ..."
"... I highly suggest MoA barflys read Pepe Escobar's analysis of Bannon's departure, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708191056603401-steve-bannon-white-house-trump-war/ ..."
"... Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars. Ever feel you've been had? ..."
Bannon was the "Make America Great Again" guy in the White House. The strategist who had the populist
ideas that brought the votes for Trump. Jobs, jobs, jobs, infrastructure investments, immigration
limits, taxing globalists were his issue.
Trump is no young German Emperor and Bannon is no chancellor Bismark. (Both would probably have
liked those roles.) But with Bannon leaving, the Trump presidency is losing its chief strategist,
the one person which set priorities and could set an alternative course for the ship of state under
Trump's command.
The racist Huffington Post headline implies that Bannon prioritized the wrong country.
Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely
irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors!
Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually
and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views,
policy and go along what msm/deep state wants.
These moves clearly show how isolated he really is , he could have been strong instead
he backs off ASAP it seems.
We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato
supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and
bad situation.
Trump proves you don't have t be smart to be rich. Trump has the IQ of a corn dog. He is surrounding
himself with Deep State assholes....his days are numbered.
The US has a military junta in control These are people Trump picked - they were not imposed
on him. The people that got Trump elected out lived there usefulness
Now we will see more war - arms to Ukraine and escalation in Syria and against Iran and North
Korea. The American public have really been led by the nose as they will see all this as a good
thing.
I doubt that it will help Trump to implement what Bannon and Trump himself intended to do.
It won't. These globalists, Goldman Sachs lobbyists and MIC/Pentagon vultures are too firmly
entrenched in the immediate vicinity of the Oval office to be uprooted that easily. On the other
hand, the anti-war, America-First, get-the jobs-back Trump voters can be made into a whole frigging
mass movement which could multiply peaceful protest actions and, as they say, " rock the boat
".
It would take brains and planning, but it can be done.
If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting.
Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they
are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc).
I wouldn't mind to see Pence taking over at some stage. The two real faces of the White power
in the US for everyone in the world to contemplate. Might get their lackeys sober. Let the Titanic
drowns to the bottom so the rest of the world can breathe.
Staying with the caricature you show, b., Trump will start a war. Yeah, Bannon talked of
infrastructure. Hitler built the Autobahn and got rid of unemployment, one way or the other, "economic
nationalism" is a relabeling of fascism.
This here is what Trump's presidency has been about right from the start - a
capitalist raid on government. Bannon's role has been - and looking at Breitbart still is
- to sell Trump to the stupid little people.
At school in Australia in the 1960's our regular theme was the inevitability of 'hegemonic ' struggle
. I noticed it vanished as a theme from history and social studies, 70's onwards.
Used to think it was deliberately done to subconsciously underline the newness and completeness
of the Anglo/ American empire . A product here to stay -- The old forces of struggle - of victory
and defeat no longer patterns at play .
Ridiculous! You are using Hitler fallacy blasting Trump, Bannon, their policies, why dont you
go to CNN instead and comment? Whiny Trump, Bannon is nazis, fascist is the liberal propaganda
fake-news, meanwhile in the real world:
Great analysis. This internal power struggle is not over. Yes, the generals are now in charge
as I once predicted long ago when we first started seeing the decline in the polls at all levels
of the state except for two major institutions: 1) the military; and 2) the police. The logical
conclusion was that, eventually, these institutions would hold most of the political power since
they are the most popular.
It's fascinating how martinets who continually lose wars are still considered "heroes" (thank
you for your service). So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had
to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The
ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington
since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within
the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost
a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is
once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go.
Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's
patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director
and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved
that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly
hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites
at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of
U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling
of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into
the hands of the Globalists.
Recommend people follow twitter.com/ezilidanto. Trump has already re-instated Clinton's people
to continue the UN occupation of Haiti. Trump is getting blindsided when all he needs to do is
up his twitter game and ignore the lame stream bilderberg media.
Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery
of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining
the swamp'.
A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and
relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people
who can act as the foundations of the new administration.
With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic
part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like
Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely
lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration.
Trump has been effectively reduced to a who might as well just be sitting in the Oval Office
jerking off to porn and watching to cat videos.
It is also laughable to see people crying about the country stumbling into a 'civil war'. The
Trump base is a bunch of clowns who still believe they won a presidential election with 'meme
magic'.
Their 'god emperor' has become the ultimate 'cuck' and they have nothing in response other
than crying in their echo chamber forums about how they are 'winning'.
I have always thought that Obama was a con artist, and Trump, a salesman.
Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant
he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know
this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy
patrons that he didn't mean a word of it.
Trump, however, is a salesman. He will simply tell you what you want to hear at the moment
to close the deal. 'Oh yeah, that model car is great, no the seats in the other model are exactly
the same..." just making it up on the fly, trying to read the customer. A salesman probably doesn't
really think of it as lying. And when the deal is made, they won't deliberately stab you in the
back - they just maybe won't be too concerned if it doesn't work out quite like they said.
Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign.
THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike
on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like
the promises of a car salesman...
Trump lost the vote. If it weren't for the moronic Electoral College crap Trump wouldn't be president.
So when Bannon tries to posture as the genius who won the presidency for Trump, Trump knows better.
Everyone who talks about Trump winning the election is lying. Trump knows this, because that's
the bottom line. Trump doesn't need a loser for an adviser. It's Trump who may now create a significant
fascist movement by his support. It is not Bannon who will bring the fascist masses to Trump,
because the masses aren't fascist.
As for delusions about Trump's non-imperialist foreign policy? The man ran as a conqueror,
not a peacemaker. Trump is an owner. The US economy relies on the dollar and the dollar is backed
by blood. Its role is not commensurate with the US' real economy, much less gold. The Soviets
could give up their alleged empire because it wasn't an empire, it was an expense. The owners
of the US rely on their empire. They can't give it up and they don't want to. Trump is one of
them. He's about trashing old politics. Nazis in Charlottesville is the new politics, but he doesn't
need Bannon for that.
"Trump is nazi"
"Bannon is nazi"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Bannon is a fascist"
Tragic that even people here buying the fake-news liberal propaganda. Nazi? Facists? Come on
please. No wonder world is a mess or rather a brainwashed mass.
Trump would not have been elected without him. -Bannon. b's top post.
Wondered about this, probably correct... though Trump, DT - Bannon are a sort of meeting of
the minds so who what? etc. DT did veer pragmatically away from Bannon-type core positions on
'Muslims', in the infamous Clash of Civilzations line, as DT relegated religion to the lower drawer,
to use violence as a no. 1. criteria - "ISIS", "terrorism", etc. (Campaign.)
DT clarioned the obvious, MAGA was for all Amrikis - LGTB, muslim, black, anyone, etc.
That is why he won! (Bannon would of course have understood this.) On Iran DT has also been a
little more 'tempered' imho but who knows really, e.g.:
I posted about Trump's VP pick at the time saying it was a terrible sign. Response, he had
to pick a Rep. estab. figure. NO. That was his first capitulation that led to all the others and
those to come. And it will be his downfall. He could have picked a nonenity, anybody really, a
woman would have been ~+ (not S. Palin, that type or top Rep. F figures at the time), a young
man of Hispanic origin, someone sympathetic with stage presence, etc. Why not, Bannon himself?
The bold move would have been to offer it publically to B. Sanders as a challenge.
DT is from the biz world and his intuitions about 'breaking molds' are constrained by the profit
motive, which operate in a regulated field, he does not understand politics where 'anything goes.'
The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support
that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges..
It is a fascist road map. Weimar street fights - check. "Wenn das der Führer wüsste"- problems
are the people around the leader, not the leader himself. The leader is a saint. - check. "We
will have to crash them" ie the Röhm mob who did the street fights - check. Infrastructure projects
against unemployment, no matter the conditions of forced labor - check. "Buy German" - check.
War against economic competitors - check. Find an interior race to unite against - Jews, Black
lives matter - check
If Bannon is going back to Breitbart then I'm very confident that The Swamp will soon be in deep
do-do. He can disrupt their schemes, smear them 24/7, and make them look stupider, from Breitbart,
than he ever could have done from inside the White House.
Bannon knows that the Swamp believes
ALL of it's own bullshit. With Bannon pointing it out, it won't be long before everyone on Earth
knows too.
The White House is also getting support for its tax-cut plan from the political network of
billionaire brothers Charles Koch and David Koch, who didn't support President Donald Trump
during his 2016 campaign. Short and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are set to appear on
a tax panel hosted by two Koch-funded groups Monday in Washington.
Since the IRS found in 2010 that a complicated banking method used by Renaissance and about
10 other hedge funds was a tax-avoidance scheme, Mercer has gotten increasingly active in politics.
According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, he doled out more than $22 million
to outside conservative groups seeking to influence last year's elections, while advocating
the abolition of the IRS and much of the federal government.
Richard Painter, chief White
House ethics adviser under President George W. Bush, said the optics surrounding the Mercers'
political connections and the IRS case "are terrible."
"The guy's got a big case in front of the IRS," said Painter, now a University of Minnesota
law professor who is also vice chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
"He's trying to put someone in there who's going to drop the case. Is the president of the
United States going to succumb to that or is he not?"
"Are we going to have a commissioner of the IRS who aggressively enforces the law and takes
good cases to Tax Court or (somebody who) just throws away tax cases so billionaires don't
have to pay their taxes and the rest of us can pay more taxes?"
You recognize you are in the middle of a psychological war yet do not act accordingly.
The "two sides" in this war shoot their weapons in the direction of the "other side" but the
aim is strictly at the boobs in the middle. You should know this but yet you insist on being the
boob in the middle.
Why is that?
Printing is pretty cheap these days. Pamphlets work wonders. Go forth and publish. While you
still can.
The US is a fascist nation. By degrees it became increasingly fascist. The key element of fascism
is collusion between government and big business. This collusion does not serve the common citizen.
What I did say was - if you dress like a Nazi, if you shout Nazi slogans, if you act like Nazis
did, if your political programme is that of Nazis, there is a strong likelihood that you are a
Nazi.
Of course there is a cultural difference, these US billionaire backers of potential mass movements
are after a "
disruptive " tax and regulation free oligarchy, competitive advantage plus the profits of
war, whilst German (and US) industrialists of the time were after an authoritarian corporate state,
competitive advantage and the profits of war.
The difference between industrialists who depend on a work force and money made by speculation.
What Bannon is selling to the little people is the protection of an authoritarian corporate
state.
The neocon and neolib warmongers are in full control. The US now marches in one direction: WAR.
Millions (billions?) more will suffer more death and destruction. The US and its Anglosphere and
EU vassals are nothing but vile and despicable. All my remaining hope is in the Eastern powers
standing strong.
"What I did say was - if you dress like a Nazi, if you shout Nazi slogans, if you act like Nazis
did, if your political programme is that of Nazis, there is a strong likelihood that you are a
Nazi."
"programme" << Not in the American tongue.
Anon is a boob. There is hope for Anon yet.
You are a dissimulator and a propaganda agent. (Per your own if it walks like a duck ...)
Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss.
Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been
much healthier for the rest of the world.
The deep state and Wall Street have long run the ship, and now Big Oil's hand is on the rudder.
The personality/reality show cast changes but always diverts attention; i.e., grabs eyeballs for
the mainstream media.
Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that
only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than
Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret
the last anti-Israel voice in the White House.
trump at this point looks very weak and not in control..
Posted by: james | Aug 19, 2017 1:01:13 PM | 43
That makes an assumption that Trump has some goals, program or whatever. I always had serious
doubt, because he never showed some coherent program. Trump does not really think in terms of
abstract ideas, but in terms of people that he knows. Bannon is a favorite of a billionaire lady
that has an apartment in Trump Tower and who bankrolled recent Bannon's project. Who knows, with
Rebeccah Mercer as a president, USA would have more coherent policies? But Trump hobnobbed with
a lot of "good people" and his views seemed to be some incoherent mishmash.
Not that coherence is always a virtue. Probably all his acquaintances believed that "Obamacare"
was a terrible idea, and none of them had any notion how to "fix it", so Trump probably projected
a consensus "get rid of it, and if you can, replace it with something marvelous". And we all know
that getting a "bipartisan consensus" in Congress, with 98-2 vote, requires some profoundly stupid
legislation. And dinosaurs of American foreign policy may be pretty consistent.
Bannon was just another loudmouth for hire as far as Trump is concerned, something that he
himself did for a living when casinos etc. were less rewarding. Trump is good at repeating stuff
heard from acquaintances, but apart of letting the compatriots bask in his greateness, I am not
sure if he really wants something.
What I miss in this Bannon praise is a clear picture on how the globalist neolibcons got rid of
Trump's key strategist. What I see is sanctification of Bannon, a far right ghoul who used his
power and influence to move the political zenit further to the right.
This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned
to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're
going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're
taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on
those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important
face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea."
Let's hope the rudderless ship hits an iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the sea.
It's sad to see all the defeatism here at MoA right now. Look, I too wish Trump hadn't fired Bannon
-- or Flynn. And I wish he hadn't fired missiles at Syria or signed the new sanction bill. But
consider this: a mere month after firing those missiles (apparently, after warning the Russians
and Syrians in advance so they had time evacuate their troops), Trump agreed to the deconfliction
zones in Syria, and then a month after that, he ordered the CIA to pull the plug on their jihadi
freak-show there. Two weeks ago, all my liberal friends (yes, I still have some, but it's getting
harder and harder to reason with them) over his tweets on N. Korea. And then what happened? Nothing!
Trump is well south of a hundred percent, I grant; but he's definitely more than zero.
As far as Bannon is concerned: please don't fall for the MSM propaganda about Bannon having
been 'Trump's brain'. No. If you'll recall, Bannon only joined Trump's campaign toward the end,
in August of 2016. And yet Trump never changed his fundamental policies or campaign strategy at
all. Détente with Russia was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's from the start. Dropping 'régime
change' in Syria was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's all along.
So have some faith, people. The worst has still not happened. There's a chance -- just a chance
-- that we may still avoid a nuclear war.
Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering
them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip
of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc)
His response to Charlottesville is a case in point: he didn't explain what each group had done
wrong so his "many mistakes on all sides" was read as a reluctance to denounce right-wing hate
groups, then he flip-flopped (denounced white supremists) and flip-flopped again (returned to
his earlier position) after out-cry from the right. I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists
and critics of Trump won't dont like this view.
@46 piotr... i hear what you are saying.. trump is in it for trump... the guy is all about what
corporations are about - branding, logo, etc. etc.. trump inc. and making money... as i was saying
to a friend earlier today, if everything is about money - the bottom line of so many - when these
folks no longer have a planet, there ain't gonna be no bottom line to look after either...
if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge
say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized
at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character
to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole
planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the
country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either..
if correct, and i haven't read the link @50 vannok post is further confirmation of it..
Great points, although if I could add - firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think
like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then
Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on.
He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that is? Because
his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not say that
in Breitbart.
Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".
Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?
It is obvious that Mercer/Bannon did not split with Trump. Bannon is now firing up the base
whilst Trump does what he has to do to satisfy his billionaire friends ie get rid of regulations
and taxes.
Whilst Bannon pretends Trump is hostage to Republican elites that have to be removed by his
base.
Bannons "War with China" is not non interventionist.
Bannon is a paid tool.
Those Nazis have been filmed from all sides and are being identified online, losing their jobs
because of it.
I suggest people send them Bannon's interview in the American Prospect.
The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently
chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership
but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice,
always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention
away from it.
An orange sash is what the President of the Galaxy traditionally wears.
On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has
ever had. He spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud. Very very few people
realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very
few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly
believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more
wrong.
============
1. "I never said Trump voters were Nazis, they were anti-Hillary. Including the non-voters."
No they voted because of his economic policy.
2. "He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that
is? Because his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not
say that in Breitbart."
Lol you are making up stupid conspiracy theories, he said something about Charlottesville because
he was asked to obviously.
You cant accept what Bannon is saying you are making up things in your head. If you cant accept
reality, what matter is our discussion? But keep those conspiracy theories coming because those
are novel.
3. "Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".
Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?"
Yes they sure do, the videos show violence on both sides, apparently you and CNN see the world
in such bad/good sides. You have become blind by the liberal MSM apparently.
As far as violence in europe,
On other threads, the need for solidarity's been raised by myself and others. I believe what
I'll call the Hate Resistance or Anti-Hate forces could provide the foundation for the required
rise of a Progressive-Populist Movement,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/19/alt-right-gathers-boston-thousands-counter-rally-fight-supremacy
Now, I understand that those with the money behind these counter protests are anything but Progressive
or want to see Populism rise; however, the required solidarity's been generated, so all that's
needed is for Direction to be supplied for a bottom->up Movement to grow and become a new political
force that could even tap into some of the issues Bannon will certainly raise.
Night of the Long Knives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation).
Night of the Long Knives
Ernst Röhm (right) with Kurt Daluege
and Heinrich Himmler
Native name
Unternehmen Kolibri
Duration
June 30 – July 2, 1934
Location: Nazi Germany
Also known as
Operation Hummingbird, Röhm Putsch (by the Nazis), The Blood Purge
Type: Coup d'état and purge
Cause: Conflicts between Strasserist and Hitler
Organised by
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Goebbels
Heinrich Himmler
Reinhard Heydrich
Participants
Schutzstaffel (Hitler faction)
Sturmabteilung (Röhm faction)
Unorganized regime opposition
Outcome
Adolf Hitler's supremacy confirmed
Elimination of opposition to the Nazi Government
Casualties
85 officially and upwards to 150–200 total
The Night of the Long Knives (German: Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), also called Operation
Hummingbird (German: Unternehmen Kolibri) or, in Germany, the Röhm Putsch[a] (German spelling:
Röhm-Putsch), was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the
Nazi regime carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate
Hitler's absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung),
the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the
SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies.
Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with
its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis
(such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr,
who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt
leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public
that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics.
The similarities go on and on, it's plain ridiculous, almost embarrassing to even point them
out.
Bannon is a dangerous ideologue. I have no idea if Trump himself has any political beliefs,
probably not - but he loves and needs popular support. And if he doesn't manage to create 'jobs,
jobs, jobs', what will he do?
T. is pretty alone now, that's true. Having no political standpoints, this makes him an easy
target for others to drive into a corner and manipulate - and afterwards, they'll say: "Trump
is crazy, we told you so, this war was all his fault and his alone!"
Yeah, sure. And of course, the blame for WW2 lies entirely with a few 'crazy Nazis', the German
(and international) capital elite had nothing to do with it, they didn't want the Nazis to destroy
the Soviet Union, no no...
Yes, this was the crucial moment: Those Nazis who actually believed their own anti-elite propaganda
had to be eliminated, so the rest could serve as a popular figurehead for pro-elite policies.
H. had the support of the masses, but what he did served the interest of the '1%' - including
the war on Soviet Russia, which they wanted. Of course, afterwards the German money elite had
nothing to do with it, it was all done by those 'crazies', and that's what the history books still
tell us today...
"trump at this point looks very weak and not in control.. "
That's exactly what I wrote more than a year ago, and why I didn't want him to be president:
He may not be an 'evil person' (I have no idea), but he's weak and prone to doing 'stupid stuff'
when in a difficult situation.
I do hope Russia and China understand this, and act accordingly/ offer him a face-saving way
out.
Friday's Camp David talks on Afghanistan appear to have ended without a final decision by President
Trump on troop levels, as he continues to resist pressure from top cabinet officials to sign
off on a massive escalation of the 16-year-old conflict with thousands of fresh troops.
Trump had initially delegated the decision to Defense Secretary James Mattis, but Mattis
found a cap limiting his maximum deployment too restrictive.
Now, Vice President Pence and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster are also taking up
the cause of large-scale escalation, pushing Trump to accept the recommendations of the commanders.Pence
and McMaster were at the Camp David meeting, but Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who has been
pushing a "privatize the war" initiative, was blocked, apparently at the behest of McMaster.
Trump aide Steve Bannon, another skeptic of military escalation, was sacked outright.
What's the purpose of the "escalation"?
Why escalate in Afghanistan?
What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?
(Nothing, as far as I can see)
So why "escalate?
As far as I can see Trump is no longer in charge of any of the several wars the US is currebtly
waging. If he ever was in charge in the first place.
As far as I can tell, the purpose of any escalation would simply be: "to escalate". With all
the increase in expenditure that such an escalation would naturally require.
Throughout the Obama era troop levels in afghanistan were raised and lowered without any rhyme
or reason, with no connection to events on the ground, that I could see.
Nothing has changed in that regard since Tronald took charge.
If anything this confirms Orwell's theory, espoused in his "Theory and Practice of Oligarical
Collectivism", that the purpose of war is: "To wage war".
Thus filling the coffers of those who profit from waging war. And more importantly emptying
the treasury of funds that could be used to improve living conditions for the proles. Proles of
all different skin colours.
Nothing has changed in that regard since the Obama era.
Except: the circus has a new show on, to distract the " stupid little people". Instead of "gender
wars" the show at the local theatre changed to "race wars"
But at the end of the day, it's still just a show, just like it was under Obomber, designed
to distract.
Bread and Circuses.
Since nothing has changed, claims of Nazism aimed at Trump are nonsense, unless the person
making the claim was making the exact same claim regarding
Obama.
Which they weren't
Which brings us back to the "stupid little people"
Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge
of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars.
Ever feel you've been had?
There are a few assumptions that are driving the Trump is doomed story. The first; he is unthinking,
borderline stupid. The second: he is isolated. The third; he has no plan.
I think they are wrong
on all counts. I believe he is shrewd, his business dealings show that. He is not isolated as
he trusts very few people and relies on his family and only his family. He has few people close
to him by choice. Finally he clearly has plans and surrounding himself with military give you
a glimpse into his thinking. He has just announced an upgrade to the cyber security agency and
it may take over NSA responsibilities.
The Pentagon has long been at war with the CIA/State Dept and the NSA. He is backing the Pentagon
and with their help can decimate his and their enemies. As for congress, he has been assembling
a war chest and in the 2018 elections will support those who are loyal to him. He will bury the
Republicans who failed to come up with a healthcare plan, he will bury the Republicans who failed
to support him. He was a leading developer worldwide, dealing with some of the world's biggest
business sharks do you seriously think he can't take on Congressional sycophants?
The U.S. appears ungovernable at this time, the hysterical temper whipped up on all sides, no
reasoned thinking. I guess we're now getting a look at the big show Obama was able to put on for
us, when in actual fact things were ungovernable all along - it's just so, so exposed now under
Trump. He's being bitten by the people closest to him. Repeatedly.
There would be a way for a country to escape such internal capitulation if there were a visible
rule of law, or maybe some code of ethics on show. Rule of the rich should look this way, paying
for the pleasure of watching other people watch monkeys to throw shit at one another daily.
Trump is probably best known, amongst the proles, as host of the show "The Apprentice". The
premise of this show was that he gathered together a whole bunch of asshats and then one by one
fired all of them.
Fast Forward to 2017 and the Trump presidency.
He gathered a whole bunch of asshats around him and one by one fired all of em . . . . .
Say what you like about the man, but at least he's consistent ;-)
Americans who simply ignore President Trump's occasionally hints of brutality ( that police should
be even rougher or more brutal in their dealings with criminal suspects), are citizens proceeding
at their own peril. President Obama, in his heyday, made public statements, in which he pronounced
Army private Bradley (Chelsea) Manning guilty of treason;--a young soldier who had been held in
brutal detention in a military stockade,--when no trial had even begun. The law is found to be
expedient when it serves political ends, and is otherwise ignored.
In preemptive violence they trust: glorification of abusive power and coersion, and demonization
of the Other. It's truly a bi-partisan thing we are seeing: the last links to sanity being removed.
No one is sure what the little extra nudge it might be, that could hurl us down into social chaos.
Whether Trump proves himself more or less dangerous than Hillary Clinton would have been, simply
shrinks into insignificance, compared to the US Congress, and the bi-partisan consensus for irrational
global dominance that keeps pushing us toward destruction.
But some liberals have decided that the Day of Antifa is not such a bad thing; meaning we should
duke it out in the streets with crazier right wingers, hoping that the contagion of hate will
spread throughout the land. Mark Bray, a lecturer at Dartmouth College, is giving the necessity
of preemptive violence his academic blessing. With the flood of adrenaline, the blood thickens
and grows hot, and eventually spills out on the paving stones and the curb.
On the other hand, the inchoate lunges and political retractions, the firings and shuffling
of personnel in the administration, is not at all inspiring. If Trump brings any more generals
into the National Security Council, people will have even more reason to worry. Bannon's departure,
in and of itself, will probably not change the trajectory that the US government is locked into.
Bannon is not the pilot of Trump's soul, nor is he the Mephistopheles whispering into the ear
of Trump.
What keeps me awake at night is the knowledge that the only time Congress rallies to Trump,
is when they are confident that he is about to start pushing out the borders of the empire, economically
strangling small countries,--or better still, when he proves his mettle by bombing and killing
folks. Does this president have the grit to resist foolhardy military adventures, or improve diplomatic
relations with countries that view the US with alarm, or to put people back to work and rebuild
the domestic economy? It's hard to say how.
You seem to be rather cognitively challenged: I don't say Trump's a fascist, I say he 'probably
has no political beliefs'. Go watch TV if complex arguments are too much for you.
Putin is no fascist either, but he needs extreme right-wing support so Russian fascists have
a certain influence on him imo.
Can Trump do any more to show the rest of the world what a craven puppet the US has become to
the God of Mammon folks?
I believe that all this strum and drang are the prelude for war or a major shift in geo-political
focus on war as an economic engine of society. The next step in the prelude is either war or economic
war, both about maintaining global private finance control or away from that model. The propaganda
and fear mongering escalate so that rational discussion of the paths forward are obfuscated and
misdirected.
Trump may have dropped a pilot but it is foolish to think that those who have piloted global
private finance for centuries have let down their guard.
Are you one of those rare infallible gentlemen who never has made a mistake? Why are you making
it personal? I can only guess that you are trolling. No one born in this world can pass through
it free of error. But I guess you have pardoned yourself, given that you are an exception.
@ fast freddy who didn't credit any with the tool of Rational Thought
Below is a recent quote from Lord Rothschild that you can analyze keeping in mind that his
organization reduced its US holdings from 62% to 37% of it portfolio in the past 6 months....
"
The period of monetary accommodation may well be coming to an end. Geopolitical problems remain
widespread and are proving increasingly difficult to resolve. We therefore retain a moderate exposure
to equity markets and have diversified our asset allocation towards equity investments where value
creation is driven by some identifiable catalyst or which are exposed to longer-term positive
structural trends.
"
Hey, he is being "upfront" about it........I wonder when the music stops?
StephenLaudig 55
Thanks for the HHG reference. Sometimes we need some comedy to temper our outrage.
Yes, I agree Trump is now surrounded by Goldman Sachs, military types, and pro-Israel Jared.
Nothing good can come of this. SecDef Gates resisted the warmongering of Team Obama but ultimately
he went along with it. So even if there is some common sense among the generals, that doesn't
mean they can prevent another warmongering misadventure. Tillerson has shown some restraint but
it's hard to trust anyone in govt anymore.
We Americans have a problem: the USA is not performing as it should . We Americans have
not solved the problem of how to satisfactorily staff a two man team capable to manage the white
household, nor have we Americans done any better seating old 100 gents to rule the Senate, worse
among us we seem unable to supply 425 jugglers, dancers, and actors the house of dancing confusion
needs to sell its show time tickets. This staffing problem is an American problem, not a USA problem.
Its time Americans set their minds to solving it.
Its disappointing to see that Trump may have a problem supporting people that pledge their
reputations, futures, and positions to help Trump. In business I have seen many persons with this
psychological problem, its not about the hired person, its about imperfection : even the
slightest non-conforming misstep by the supportive employee is sufficient to bring about
a vilification, a firing, and the like. It nows seems possible that the surround sound family
in the white house was a defensive move designed to overcome a known-to-Trump problem that probably
has plagued Trump his entire life. I put a short-run fantastic performing employee in charge of
a significant managerial position; within a year he had fired nearly everyone in the place, some
fired had 20 years of relevant experience. Five years later the same person repeated the performance,
within a year everyone in the new place had been fired. Later, another person, this time an expert
with 20 years experience in a particular line of business was bathed in venture capital and tasked
to establish a new business within his expertise; he fired nearly everyone that he hired; some
made it a year, but that was it. He ended up trying to run the business all by himself.
This will likely only hasten the inevitable: either the liquidation of cucks and neocons
as the GOP becomes the implicit party of white nationalism, or the liquidation of the GOP as such
at the hand of white nationalists.
The sooner either of these occur, the better it is going
to be for the majority white population in the US. Probably for the black and brown populations,
too.
Is it just me, or is Trump's team becoming more and more reminiscent of the Soviet politburo c.
1986 ?
@psycho 75
In other words, we either overcome capitalism or face war...unless, of course, we miraculously
stumble upon the driver of a new Kondratieff. Without completely destroying the planet, that is.
@ fudmier who posits that Americans have a problem.
I dare say that the problem Americans have is shared by the rest of the species. Society is
stuck in feudal mode at its core with its fealty to the powers of global private finance and those
who own it and have for centuries. The model of a few, unaccountable people, perpetuating the
God of Mammon religion of private property, inheritance to insure continuation and that some humans
are better than others inherently is a sick measure of what we think of as civilization.
All this shit going on is proxy manipulations like have been pursued by the elite for centuries.
Humanity needs to lose its private finance pilot and set sail with a commonly piloted future.
I think our solution is as simple or complicated as we want to make it.....its all about a
collective meme.
I have posited before here that the sewage treatment plants and water systems of the world
are not the problem. Those things represent social advances that have been built to support towns
and cities by governments.
I posit that government, by definition, is socialistic in purpose....and I further posit that
we have forgotten this and/or this definition has been twisted by others. I grew up in Tacoma,
Washington and had an uncle who was an engineer for the regional water/power SOCIALIST organization
that is still in existence today.
The reason I make that point is that I believe that by "simply" evolving the private finance/property/inheritance
component of our form of social organization we will immensely improve the incentives we live
by.
We need to kill the God of Mammon. Who believes in this religion? Will humanity evolve past
fealty to this god?
Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer and
to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals circling
around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing in than inside
pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll become a national player
in the narrative, one would expect.
By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you should
bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a voice in this
society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises, then it's time to
Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with Trump actually being
one of the precursor litmus tests.
~~
As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them
both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will
have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a banana
republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real dynamics I think.
Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if
they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll quickly
receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to the ground
so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway, regardless of who's in
charge, or thinks they're in charge?
Reflecting that b's post is actually about who's steering the ship.
Personally, I don't know - or give much weight to - whether Trump is driving his own train
here. The man shows an extraordinary plasticity, which is useful in the whirlwind that buffets
him. He can afford to entertain a million ideas, players and plans. He will outlive them all,
I suspect. Despite enormous gaffes, he stays afloat. It's not a Teflon thing, it's a buoyancy
thing, or something. Maybe it lies in the country being seen as so crazy and screwed up right
now that no one can claim the high ground, and meanwhile he is, after all the elected president,
and keeps showing up for work every day as if he's in charge.
I don't see the country as broken, unless the people accept this false narrative concocted
by the media about sides split by division. Admittedly, from all the arguing and attacking going
on in this thread, one could guess that maybe the false narrative will win.
But we could draw much comfort from the words of this young black woman, Red Pill Black, in
a 5 minute YouTube essay that has a quarter million views so far in the last 2 days. She makes
stunningly good sense - it's worth 5 minutes or your money back:
I Don't Care About Charlottesville,
the KKK, or White Supremacy
And I have some respect for the tide of history, and would challenge the notion that anyone
was ever really in charge anyway. And this is the great promise that I think Trump still holds.
I believe he will bend with the prevailing winds, within his belief system - and there are winds
stirring that no one controls, I think. History again. I can't prove it, or even point to it at
this stage, but I'm happy enough to wait.
Given that Trump's Inauguration speech included a promise to challenge the abusive power of the
Swamp/Deep State, anyone who expected something other than a Magical Mystery Tour, or imagined
that he would behave predictably, is utterly clueless about Leadership, Power, and the predictable
consequences of "throwing down the gauntlet."
All this shit going on is proxy manipulations like have been pursued by the elite for centuries.
Humanity needs to lose its private finance pilot and set sail with a commonly piloted future.
Ever heard of the enclosure acts ? Do you know which wealthy propaganda artist and lobbyist
placed Art. I, Sec. 8, (8) in the US constitution? The Congress shall have the power ...to promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." ?
Any idea how the patent and copyright clause has been used to force on the people of the world
the crime of kill and take, lie and steal everything from whomever capitalism? Imagine the monopoly
power the Wall Street Bandits can insert into corporations by raising enough money to enable the
corporation to acquire monopoly rights in any & all great ideas [THEY CAN OWN the marketing rights
and make the profits from ANYTHING ANYONES MIND CAN THINK UP]that can be reduced to objects than
can make money.
MONOPOLY POWER is a requirement of SUCCESSFUL CAPITALISM?
Patents and copyrights produce a great portion of the faults we are all so upset about. Americans
have a problem, the USA is not performing satisfactorily because those in charge of the USA respond
only to the global capitalist who have sufficient funds to purchase what they USA is selling.
Most Americans cannot afford to buy what the USA is selling?
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of
events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief.
Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.
But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China,
and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're
wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose
once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking
loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd
just published a column on how China was
profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.
"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious
than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?
I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.
Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your
writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."
"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing.
One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping
us along. It's just a sideshow."
Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections
and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do
much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason
not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.
Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget
it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes
from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on
to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking
in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help
restrain Kim.
"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue
to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able
to recover."
Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology
transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going
to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."
But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's
aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats
with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon
has big plans to marginalize their influence.
"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs] out at State."
But can Bannon really win that fight internally?
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair]
Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like,
every day."
Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition
of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.
There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's
China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything,
it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first
two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views
on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not
exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the
racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of
using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's
a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
From his lips to Trump's ear.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every
day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness.
The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside
allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.
Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change
his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether
Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.
The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade.
We'll see if he's still there.
For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville,
click here .
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
The announcement of the
'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally
forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people
like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican
conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands:
General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the
Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is
continuing to tighten
his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of
the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior
official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be
no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than
rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political
skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The
Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible
– it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously
incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President
delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already made known my views of this speech
. I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points,
and the President has derived no political benefit from it.
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely
believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and
appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible
since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump
administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to
know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the
events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are
openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both
now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which
since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure
of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter
opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that
has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant
or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional
that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's
policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of
events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief.
Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.
But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China,
and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're
wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose
once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.
Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking
loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd
just published a column on how China was
profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.
"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious
than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?
I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.
Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your
writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."
"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing.
One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping
us along. It's just a sideshow."
Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections
and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do
much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason
not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.
Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget
it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes
from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on
to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking
in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help
restrain Kim.
"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue
to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able
to recover."
Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology
transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going
to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."
But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's
aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats
with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon
has big plans to marginalize their influence.
"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs] out at State."
But can Bannon really win that fight internally?
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair]
Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like,
every day."
Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition
of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.
There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's
China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything,
it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first
two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views
on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not
exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the
racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of
using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's
a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
From his lips to Trump's ear.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every
day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness.
The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside
allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.
Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change
his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether
Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.
The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade.
We'll see if he's still there.
For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville,
click here .
"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's
last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are
grateful for his service and wish him the best."
... ... ...
On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security
but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend." "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr.
Trump said. Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with
whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect.
In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical:
"Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't
die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's
no military solution here, they got us." He also bad-mouthed his colleagues in the Trump administration,
vowed to oust a diplomat at the State Department and mocked officials as "wetting themselves" over
the consequences of radically changing trade policy.
Of the far right, he said, "These guys are a collection of clowns," and he called it a "fringe
element" of "losers." "We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr.
Bannon said he believed was off the record. Privately, several White House officials said that Mr.
Bannon appeared to be provoking Mr. Trump and that they did not see how the president could keep
him on after the interview was published.
"... Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor, Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring ..."
"... Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process and through the beginning of the administration. ..."
"... But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration official who also worked on Wall Street... ..."
"We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr. Bannon said he believed
was off the record.
Mr. Bannon's departure was long rumored in Washington. The president's new
chief
of
staff, John F. Kelly , a retired Marine Corps general who was brought on for his ability to organize
a chaotic staff, was said to have grown weary of the chief strategist's long-running feud with Lt.
Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser.
Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor,
Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a
battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring.
Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the
right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process
and through the beginning of the administration.
But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic
policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration
official who also worked on Wall Street...
Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?
There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably
the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has
met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill
reports :
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last
year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence
community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges
to this view have emerged
in recent days,
including
from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with.
"Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further
discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner:
he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave
and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how
he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness
to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece
calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia
bandwagon. Cato
cut
their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored
Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying
we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a
mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is
up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments
made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic.
Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's
initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics –
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone
to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be
supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim
that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin.
This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning.
That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked."
We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either.
We always ask the question: " Where's the
evidence? "
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature
of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring
its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its
person of the year
. In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all
those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.
Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself
the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of
American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric
at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of
the Apocalypse
, his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine,
and Death will just have to wait.
The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be
this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective
sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him.
Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed
him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him
in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to
bemoan the injustice of it all).
Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy
lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status
quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his
promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.
Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves.
To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump
is not cause, but consequence.
For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama
staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing
as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those
worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.
How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox
News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a
more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum
on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying
consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members
of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of
the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.
Rabbit Poses a Question
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle
was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century
Everyman
, pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory
consultation, did his fellow citizens.
The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it
turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have
matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to
keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist
takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a "
single
superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was
for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.
Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade
of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held
the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning
norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of
personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States
held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.
Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness:
these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the
1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution,"
gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce
that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.
The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new
modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet,
however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only
as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information
technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions.
Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.
More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and
reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels
of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking
to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself
something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information
revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities.
That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted;
that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values
and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.
The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our
42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities
greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they
presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War
consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing
so, however, it greatly
exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working
class and underclass.
The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to
discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair
pervading a society suffering from epidemics of
chronic substance abuse ,
morbid obesity ,
teen suicide
, and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's
highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for
porn
, urban school systems
mired in permanent crisis, and
mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than
the profile of a healthy society.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting
richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United
States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As
for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been
ambiguous
at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being
offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.
In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus
signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture
taking its
motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S.
military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the
election of Donald Trump.
The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the
extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting
government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing
military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained
in their recently unveiled (and
instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum
wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed
will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.
In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally
bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis
in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.
First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the
circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics.
The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California
and New York will elect our President well into the future.
If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.
I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman
who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is
anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings
and puppet-strings.
The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish
Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss
and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides.
Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and
free speech.
California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive
of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against
it. What does that tell you?
Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along
with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media
that feed that lies 24/7.
What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus
processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals
to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic
minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.
AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about
what she intended to do ."promote world peace".
Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding,
but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with
the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never
do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended
on it.
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being
an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children
and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for
Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment.
Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined
freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may
win a lawsuit against Google.
Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut
its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined.
Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs
to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget
even more than Trump!
It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used
a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds
to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in
2020 to prove that is simple.
@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College
by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate
their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors
meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.
Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth
it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.
"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of
the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics."
Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal)
majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to
the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision
can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and
I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the
game, so to say.
Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many
more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are
picking up litter or emptying bed pans.
More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results
as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake,
and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating
for those who do not achieve them?
Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain
societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in
their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through
employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.
Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees
and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which
will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.
Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any
of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than
fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.
Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.
I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran,
Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult
for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another.
As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis
of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.
Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians,
Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the
same people that Obama had to hate.
In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't
have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes
or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE
whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse
others of hate.
Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold,
revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?
@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by
3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their
role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is
interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their
leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.
But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided
by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral
college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?
Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .
1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening
the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;
2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public
financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)
3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and
restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader
of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..
@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two
Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population.
This is a good thing.
@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as
their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.
@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives.
From Wikipedia:
"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators
and representatives."
Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less
populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes
for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.
@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same
as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect
of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of
543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per
cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent
author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure
fantasy.
"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal
branches of government."
Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.
No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how
often the phrase is repeated.
The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united
and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.
The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers,
but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution,
is very limited indeed.
In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways
to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution
has none of that.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.
@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about
the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"
Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.
@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same
essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either
a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.
@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively
only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.
Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically,
and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed
at iSteve).
The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for
power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").
What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution.
It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes
all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.
Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.
Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state,
county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed
so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even
the commodities themselves–but brands of them.
Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion
research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies,
forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.
The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that
go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those,
among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas,
then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of
value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence
is drowned in a sea of mass communications.
If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access
to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative
sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.
And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully
selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.
Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these
people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The
Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.
The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government
solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that
all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global,
they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have
their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major
metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating
the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their)))
doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really
think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who
are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites
have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today.
There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question
at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets
to emerge?
If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from
the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off
the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation
occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed
in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this
task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a
lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus
from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that
has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected
children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges
in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their
fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way
to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their
present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.
Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W
Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his
opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney.
Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the
"slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic
Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's
wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who
could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White
House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently,
with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while
producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.
@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman
became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as
the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but
perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions.
Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.
The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else
to the extent possible.
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.
What if it wasn't Russia's fault?
In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group
to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons
of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't
read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating
the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee
files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence
to the contrary.
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted
in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names.
But their findings and doubts are only being aired by
non-mainstream
publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation.
The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their
findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather
than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.
The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as
the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other
things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General
Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly
and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced
on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the
DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse
any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer
2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of
Russian metadata in his files and his
use of a Russia-based virtual private network.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers
who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former
found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on
July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second
-- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second,
a speed not
commonly
available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly
over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would
have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which
the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.
However, as Forensicator has
pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something
only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content
of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates
that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and
his answers to numerous critics in a
long post earlier
this month.
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable
technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director
for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former
technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence
officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group
is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive.
Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter,
has
pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's
material constitute the spoils of a hack.
VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions
in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used
to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency,
has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies.
While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about
Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the
past.
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the
discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since
no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike,
the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment,
had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the
Atlantic Council
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as
a hostile power.
One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on
hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not
transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still
focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is
to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it,
to the public.
Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to
increased hostility toward Russia...
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you
would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor
here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's
easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem
more intent on
noting Putin's bare-chested physique and
accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not
need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its
social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line
last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold
on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to
recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made
one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to
gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home.
In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.
( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board
or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a President elect), John McCain is more
at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding
President-elect Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United Kingdom.
This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate
Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian
lawyer had sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton,
admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :
" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government
wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s
But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is the one who was fooling around with
a foreign intelligence organization.
What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it
was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof,
thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times .
Aleksej Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive
of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation
over their role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's purported activities
involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's U.S. election.
The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he
and his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.
Gubarev
, 36, also is seeking unspecified damages from Buzzfeed
and its top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence
in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court.
Rowan Scarborough obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both illuminating and
damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following
facts:
1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum
based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and
Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).
3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership),
met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher
Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator
McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the
following claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable
cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various
contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was
to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.
[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]
7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS
(via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this salacious material to FBI director, James
Comey.
As I pointed out in my previous piece (
Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited because the Trump Jr. emails
provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was
no need to meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been delivered to
the Trump team.
The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to
charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks.
Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six
months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.
McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican).
And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly
consorted with Ukrainian operatives:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
You can read the full story
here . The hysteria on
the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more
actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater
the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations. Such a development would
leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.
I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting children). I would point out the Hillary
Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008. She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes
us this against up through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how
Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed,
one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document forensics) a pretty convincing explanation
of how the Birth Cert that the White House put forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.
They even had tracked down (& named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.
The other thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in the MSM about it. I
took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much
attention to the scandal back when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across a "Barry
Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on it.
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans
during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan.
I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to influence our elections in their
favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone
who really, really believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in that regard.
But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At my age, the reality of human
nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.
Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my
opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold
my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware
of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible.
I could go on, but won't).
The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the beginning. I was originally flabbergasted
by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person. But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working,
Americans who live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" people. Their
votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know
now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys
some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.
Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp drained and the leaks plugged
and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage
liners, shredded packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about
it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your senators and representatives
about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who
is in charge.
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."
This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), and, by association,
to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west
for their harsh critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).
No publishing house in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The
Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for
Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president
pretty much gets to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?
Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved
the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists,
"associated force" of those responsible for 9/11.
Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned as a result
of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut a deal
back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine was later reduced to only $6 million
days before his case was set for trial this past May.
" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "
This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the judiciary always gives a pass when
the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance
and misfeasance. There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.
What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?
I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current
high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to
town manufacturing hysteria.
There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan.
The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at
Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the
response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence'
in the London suit to which you linked.
Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a senior barrister at the BBC is
of any relevance I do not know.
There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft'
to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'
A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost certainly said that the memorandum
on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'
Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted from the published version of
the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.
As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to zero, and again, would not have
materially reduced the impact of the dossier.
Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who run Fusion – and one of the
company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky
wicket without needing to consult a lawyer.
At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they
could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a
flagrant cover-up.
Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably
clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting
question.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the back. So Steele is trying to
rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication
was a violation of a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.
Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that,
contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of Orbis.
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish
quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of
Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era
Radio Moscow.
The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me
unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage'
on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of
a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives"
(including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their
wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.
"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."
Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. i
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current Russiaphobia.
The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue
to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric,
but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.
Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other
matters, also disqualified Hillary.
This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis
that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization
it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic
banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should
not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make
the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories
as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown
by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark
of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global
neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of
Hillary Clinton
email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist
it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden,
the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed
Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.
Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:
The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.
Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those
Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.
Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states
descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.
Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while
Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.
Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable
Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits
paid for by the citizens of those counties.
The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using
videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including
open FBI cases in all 50 states.
U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism
is considered racism.
National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead
to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.
If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years,
do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around
for the answer. Not smart at all.
Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald
Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.
After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they
go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need
to be considered.
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue.
The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never
dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in
any strategic threat assessment.
At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment.
This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.
Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command.
He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International
Security Affairs.
"... Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital, personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a Trump support base divided into factions. ..."
"... Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state". ..."
"... However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the military, Congress, which are all very much the state . ..."
"... There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: " I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons] , I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good people. I don't want to hurt them". ..."
"... Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him, Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him ". When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama. ..."
No single definitive explanation has been provided by any others analyzing Trump's
malleability, and at best I am offering a draft of an explanation. What we have is a bundle of
possible influences, pressures, constraints, mixed in with opportunism and class prejudice.
Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to
some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital,
personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life
cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that
dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a
Trump support base divided into factions.
Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of
loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in
holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common
in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state".
However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without
anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the
military, Congress, which are all very much the state .
My concern is that "deep" state might mystify knowable actors and processes, shrouding them
in a conspiratorial pall under which they operate with seemingly limitless power and with the
independent ability to reproduce and fund themselves. Put another way, I have yet to read a
"deep state" explanation for Trump's course changes, that does not sound like it is handing an
alibi to Trump.
Next, let's review some of the main course changes charted by Trump after his electoral
victory.
Trump's Deference to Obama and the Clintons
There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the
first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate
himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to
demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants
of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were
president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told
CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: "
I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons]
, I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good
people. I don't want to hurt them".
Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and
patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him,
Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We
get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but
he likes me. I like him
".
When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost
obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama.
Then there was the endless parade of visitors to Trump Tower in New York, invited by Trump
as he possibly considered them for cabinet roles -- including the leader of the "Never Trump"
campaign, and arch neoliberal Mitt Romney. Various familiar neoconservatives were also
considered for key posts -- and each time a name was floated, such as that of Elliot Abrams, it
was left to his legions of supporters to frantically try to change Trump's mind, well trained
as they were by the experience of trying to clean up his messes over and over again during the
campaign.
The uncertainty seemed to leave many of them desperate and worried about the strangely
wavering Trump. In voting for Trump, his supporters certainly got neither
what they asked for
, nor what they deserved.
This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis
that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization
it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic
banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should
not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make
the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories
as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown
by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark
of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global
neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of
Hillary Clinton
email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist
it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden,
the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed
Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.
Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:
The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.
Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those
Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.
Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states
descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.
Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while
Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.
Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable
Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits
paid for by the citizens of those counties.
The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using
videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including
open FBI cases in all 50 states.
U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism
is considered racism.
National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead
to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.
If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years,
do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around
for the answer. Not smart at all.
Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald
Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.
After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they
go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need
to be considered.
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue.
The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never
dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in
any strategic threat assessment.
At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment.
This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.
Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command.
He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International
Security Affairs.
Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows yet what he is guilty of, and all
the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.
Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the story line that corporate media
take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians, some of whom had some connection with the Russian government,
hacked into something. Even if they did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically
self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.
If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the "integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating,
potentially catastrophic, diplomatic and military adventures -- in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.
By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason to accept the party line on Russian
meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was never any reason to get all worked up about it.
This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary, there is every reason to support
them fully.
If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate help keep Trump and the people
he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring
Trump himself down – in ways that would make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many
of the progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.
But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all one can honestly say, for now,
is: Who knows? Who cares?
Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence community" says there was.
But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying is in their genes and in their job descriptions.
Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when they aren't deliberately telling
lies.
Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it serves some institutional purpose.
Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian election meddling so vigorously
for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like
this, the wisest course of action usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.
It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense. The Washington Post and
The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited
a taste for real investigative reporting – about Trump -- in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.
But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with Joy Reid leading the way and
Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close behind.
A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing only half of what one sees
and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless
repetitions of claims originating in the intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.
The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on endlessly about that – in his
usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out
of Trump's mouth and what one reads in his tweets is sheer nonsense.
It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately false news stories, mainly
in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake (deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side
of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars,
little Donald Trumps.
What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing
Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ď
Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce narratives, story lines, that
accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety
of what C. Wright Mills called the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have,
or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.
Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they don't set out to deceive. More
often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with
the power structure's interests; and, when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.
***
For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult to underestimate the importance
of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the United States today, the Democratic Party.
That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat last November will not be Clintonism's
(neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons
that had lain dormant for decades -- bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.
Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats today have sunk so low that were
Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and
Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008 electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open
question which party actually is the greater evil of the two.
The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the Republican Party as well, is that
Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through
which the United States has dominated the world since 1945.
This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it is at least debatable whether
Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good
or bad thing.
Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at the bastions of empire and class
rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his
cabinet secretaries and agency heads have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.
This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter how much damage Trump does to
the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional arrangements afflicting the political scene.
Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who support Trump are worse. This would
not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11 Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.
After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the wellbeing of humankind, Bush is
still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally
lethal ways, he could surpass even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number One
How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say about the billionaire buffoon, are
now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.
In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem to regard Bush the Younger as one
of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!
To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public pronouncements; and notwithstanding
the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed
suit.
However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding them back. With Obama at the
helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over in their image.
For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons
Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little
to advance in any case, were more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.
Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically, he and Obama were cut from
the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most "deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated
Obama. What set their hatred off was the color of Obama's skin.
How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance and genealogy (its origins in
the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially
a Republican program. Had it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz
variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially worked up on its account.
Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several factions together during the
Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans are now floundering because when they finally got their chance
to do what they said they wanted to do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves,
but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.
Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating anti-Russian, anti-Putin
campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still, comparatively speaking.
Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less awful than the GOP is no reason
to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously promoting.
It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there is some truth in what they say.
Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?
Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic Party sore losers, but their
concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected
the outcome of the election in any significant way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.
It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim that, but for Russian meddling,
Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or
counting votes, or that they interfered with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.
The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. They did this, supposedly, by
providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and
by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.
If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation over past and on-going Republican
efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the
case with alleged Russian voter suppression efforts last year.
Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing worse than what countless
homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the
wares they peddle to targeted audiences.
The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in 2016, it was through one or another
form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult, or impossible, for likely Democratic voters -- African Americans
and other "persons of color" mainly, but also students, and many elderly citizens -- to exercise their right to vote.
***
The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling evidence, and is grounded in
a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.
But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious, and it too is significant.
Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to lose and Hillary to win. Everyone
paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were also evident for all to see.
Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would only show that those Russians
are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did
made about as much sense as throwing buckets of water into the ocean.
Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about to block the Mueller investigation
into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively
stupid as his actions suggest.
The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything the mainstream media narrative
suggests.
Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice Department investigations involving
special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was
only "a third-rate burglary," after all.
He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice Department plenty to investigate.
There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.
Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to the gilded monstrosity on Fifth
Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary Mike Pence in charge -- we will have loads of well-corroborated
reports of shady (artful?) deals with Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news
interesting again.
This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial. Much of it consists of
idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness of guilt. Ě
Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators with subpoena power scratching
beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral, or political infractions so egregious that even the fools
who still refuse to admit that Trump conned them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will
find it impossible to keep on standing by their man.
Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to be that he is guilty of, that
his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.
Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list. It should also become a consuming
passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries
of the status quo.
Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly creditable reasons, but, for
a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda
mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified, now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.
It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible to mobilize the press against
the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support, in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin
and his government, with all the dangers that ensue.
So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however, not to be sidetracked onto false
paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey
Lavrov, would have a hard time diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.
Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but Clinton inspired) neocon consensus
in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell)
as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
The real question is who controlled Imram Awan and who planted him into Congress (as a mole). The level of criminal negligence
demonstrated during his hiring is atypical for the
USA government. And especially for government IT. Which is staffed by very security conscious people, as a rule. So he
definitely should have a "sponsor" among intelligence agencies to accomplish such a feat and suppress all the "flash
lights" that lighted during evaluation of his candidacy. I think that "I want this guy" request from Debbie Wasserman
was not enough. She is no Hillary Clinton ;-) But to which country this intelligence agency belong is an open question,
but most probably this was a USA intelligence agency. I doubt that Mossad would use Pakistani as their agent.
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between 30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees." ..."
"... At one point, Imran brought into the House as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being recently fired by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000. ..."
"... To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees, Imran also hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman. ..."
"... The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff. Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014. ..."
"... It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial reporting on the investigation of the Awans family, repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff. ..."
"... As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested. ..."
"... Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan. ..."
"... Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments. ..."
"... [An earlier version of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ] ..."
There has been surprisingly little media follow-up on the story about the July 25 th Dulles Airport arrest of House
of Representatives' employed Pakistani-American IT specialist Imran Awan, who was detained for bank fraud while he was allegedly
fleeing to Pakistan. The mainstream media somewhat predictably produced
minimal press coverage before the story died. The speed at which the news vanished has prompted some observers,
including Breitbart, to sound the alarm over a suspected cover-up of possible exposure of classified information or even espionage
that just might be part of the story that we are now calling Russiagate.
To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and
two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between
30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were
their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than
time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees."
At one point, Imran brought into the House
as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being
recently fired
by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications
at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he
went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee
as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000.
To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees,
Imran also
hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and
kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana
routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman.
The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service
level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff.
Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014.
The process of granting security clearances to Congressional staff is not exactly transparent, but it is not unlike the procedures
for other government agencies. The office seeking the clearance for a staff member must put in a request, some kind of investigation
follows, and the applicant must then sign a non-disclosure agreement before the authorization is granted. Sometimes Congress pushes
the process by demanding that its staff have access above and beyond the normal "need to know." In March 2016, for example, eight
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee requested
that their staffs be given access to top secret sensitive compartmented information.
It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been
involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial
reporting on the investigation of the Awans family,
repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer
network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely
ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff.
Congress paid the Awans
more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources suggest to be
three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at the same level of
alleged competency. Four of the Awans were among the
500 highest paid of the 15,000 congressional staffers. The considerable and consistent level of overpayment has not been explained
by the congressmen involved. In spite of all that income being generated, Imran Awan declared bankruptcy in 2010 claiming losses
of $1 million on a car business that he owned in Falls Church Virginia that ran up debts and borrowed money that it failed to repay.
The business was named
Cars International A, abbreviated on its business cards as CIA
The Awans family also was noted for its brushes with the law and internal discord, though it is doubtful if the congressional
employers were aware of their outside-of-the-office behavior. The brothers were on the receiving end of a number of traffic citations,
including DUI, and were constantly scheming to generate income, including what must have been a
hilarious phone conversation to their credit union in
which Imran pretended to be his own wife in order to wire money to Pakistan. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother,
including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not see
their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government
owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer
network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed
to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem.
Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after
he was actually arrested.
Some of those defending the Awans, to include Wasserman-Schultz and the family lawyer, have insisted that he and his family were
the victims of
"an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job," though there is no actual evidence to suggest that is the case. They also claim that
the bank fraud that led to the arrest, in which Imran obtained a home equity loan for $165,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit
Union based on a house that he owned and claimed to live in in Lorton Virginia, was largely a misunderstanding It has been described
as something "extremely minor" by his lawyer
Chris Gowen , a
high priced Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
It turned out that Imran and his wife no longer lived in the house which had been turned into a rental property, a clear case
of bank fraud. The Awans had
tenants in the house, an ex-Marine and his Naval officer wife, who were very suspicious about a large quantity of what appeared
to be government sourced computer equipment and supplies, all material that had been left behind by the owners. They contacted the
FBI, which discovered hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed.
The FBI is certainly interested in the theft of government computers but it is also looking into the possibility that the Awans
were using their ability to access and possibly exploit sensitive information stored in the House of Representatives' computer network
as well as through Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, which Imran had access to and was connected to the Democratic National Committee server.
It is believed that Imran sent stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton Virginia, where the smashed equipment
was found, or as far away as Pakistan. As Imran Awan is a dual-national, born in Pakistan, the possibility of espionage also had
to be considered. By some accounts the Awan family traveled back to Pakistan frequently, where Imran was treated royally by local
officialdom, suggesting that he may have been doing favors for the not very friendly government in Islamabad.
Considering the possible criminal activity that Imran and his family might have been engaged in and which was still under investigation,
the Capitol Police and FBI determined that he should be stopped in his attempt to flee to Pakistan. The charge that Awan was actually
arrested on at the airport, bank fraud, was an easy way to hold him as it was well documented. It allows the other more serious investigations
to continue, so the argument that Imran Awan is only being held over a minor matter is not necessarily correct.
Awans had wired the credit union money and some cash of his own to Pakistan, as part of a $283,000 transfer that was made in January.
His wife Hina Alvi also left the U.S. two months later.
She was searched by Customs officers and it was determined that she had on her $12,400 in cash. She also had with her their three
children, and numerous boxes containing household goods and clothing. It was clear that she did not intend to come back but there
has been no explanation
why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony.
As Imran Awan
reportedly had access to Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, he presumably also was able to see the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
He used a laptop in her office as well that was, according to investigators, concealed in an "unused crevice" in the Rayburn House
Office Building. It is currently being examined by police but Wasserman-Schultz tried strenuously to recover it before it could be
looked at. She pressured the
Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew Verderosa to return it, threatening him by saying "you should expect that there will be consequences."
Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to
open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan.
There is another odd connection of Imran Awan that goes back to the neocon circle around Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War. In
late 2002 and early 2003, Wolfowitz regularly
met secretly with
a group of Iraqi expatriates who resided in the Washington area and were opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqis had not
been in their country of birth for many years but they claimed to have regular contact with well-informed family members and political
allies. The Iraqi advisers provided Wolfowitz with a now-familiar refrain, i.e. that the Iraqi people would rise up to support invading
Americans and overthrow the hated Saddam. They would greet their liberators with bouquets of flowers and shouts of joy.
The Iraqis were headed by one Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, born in Baghdad to Iranian parents in 1963, a 1989
graduate of the American University of
Beirut Faculty of Medicine. He subsequently emigrated to the United States and set up a practice in internal medicine in Greenbelt
Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. Al-Attar eventually expanded his business to include nine practices that he wholly or partly
owned in Virginia and Maryland but he eventually lost his license due to "questionable billing practices" as well as "unprofessional
conduct" due to having sex with patients
Al-Attar was
investigated by the FBI and eventually
indicted for large scale health care fraud in 2008-9, which included charging insurance companies more than $2.3 million for
services their patients did not actually receive with many of the false claims using names of diplomats and employees enrolled in
a group plan at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington. In one case, the doctors claimed an embassy employee visited three of their clinics
every 26 days between May 2007 and August 2008 to have the same testing done each time. The insurance company paid the doctors $55,000
for more than 400 nonexistent procedures for the one patient alone.
Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive
from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this
case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and
also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically
involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives
that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments.
The Imran Awan case is certainly of considerable interest not only for what the investigation eventually turns up but also for
what it reveals about how things actually work in congress and in the government more generally speaking. I don't know which of the
allegations about what might have taken place are true, but there is certainly a lot to consider. Whether the case is investigated
and prosecuted without fear or favor will depend on the Department of Justice and FBI, but I for one was appalled to learn that the
official who quite likely will
oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother
of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If that should actually occur, it would be a huge conflict of interest and it has to be wondered if
Wasserman would have the integrity to recuse himself.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted
prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals
to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained
beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of
caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran
Awan wind up with a high-priced lawyer to defend him who is associated with the Clintons? Would that kind of lawyer even take a relatively
minor bank fraud case if that were all that is involved? Finally, there are the lingering concerns about the unfortunately well-established
Russiagate narrative. Did the Russians really hack into the DNC or were there other possibilities, to include some kind of inside
job, a "leak," carried out by someone working for the government or DNC for reasons that have yet to be determined, possibly even
someone actually employed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? There are certainly many issues that the public needs to know more
about and so far, there are not enough answers.
[An earlier version
of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ]
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely
event I were to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance
and allow me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
The Department of Justice needs to do its job looking at the Clintons, the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile and others.
The stench of corruption is appalling, and the Russia thing looks more like a fraudulent story to keep the pressure off, particularly
since the phony dossier which started it was compiled at the behest of a political consultancy which usually works for the same
crowd. I think it is about time that Mueller's fishing expedition be closed down and the necessary draining of the swamp be commenced.
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... Actually, the whole Awan-US Congress case is about the High Treason. No security clearances. The open
access to the classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (oh the irony!) and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
There are should be arrests made of those congresspeople who allowed the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity by inviting
and financing the non-qualified personnel (fraudulent hiring).
An important question is, who pays Chris Gowen, a very expensive and well-connected lawyer, for the defense of the documented
fraudster and possible spy.
That Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz oversees the investigation
is a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Those making the presstituting peeps about Russiangate should be from now on pummelled with the facts of the Tale of the Brothers
Awan.
This is a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people
were spying. Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince'
them to do so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer
ripoff in DC.
@Dana Thompson Somebody
should write a movie script based on this. It would be better than American Hustle - call it Pakistani Hustle, maybe. The pitch
would start with, "It's the Sopranos meet the Simpsons."
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed
Hillary Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey
dragged his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried?
What if they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they
never expected that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to
the Mueller, Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning
stages had to predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game
of strip poker? What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the
historical analogue of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest
episode of war pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What
are the chances that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods
on all of them, and she'll file that affidavit if she has to.
Killing freedom of speech in America, one google search at a time:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
"According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere
and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression. For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported
that "Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet
web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes,
many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html
@Seamus Padraig "As
Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no
leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair)
and the Trump Justice Dept. seems to have zero interest in it
I suspect this and other reasons- like the serial leaks from the highest levels of the intelligence agencies are why Trump
is becoming openly exasperated with Sessions
I suspect that Sessions knows that too much exposure of back-room dealings of the deepstate (with perhaps the Senate), would
be potentially inconvenient.
when Lindsey Graham! came to Jeff Sessions defense, I sort of knew then that Jeff Sessions is a deepstate asset
@F. G. Sanford What
if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed Hillary
Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey dragged
his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried? What if
they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they never expected
that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to the Mueller,
Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning stages had to
predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game of strip poker?
What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the historical analogue
of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest episode of war
pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What are the chances
that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods on all of them,
and she'll file that affidavit if she has to. I'm sorry F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied
to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between
the real, and the phony, narratives which have been put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy
theories' are made to become conspiracy theories.
It's possible the Wasserman-Schultz – Awan scandal was raised subsequently by a caller to C Span, but as the above schedule
of C Span Washington Journal programming displays, if the American people wanted to in-depth information about the Awans, they'd
do better to tune in to RT, where Dr. Phil Giraldi explained the case and labeled it "the scandal of the century"
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Where is Mr. Wasserman's
boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person in this critical
job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would stop DOJ from firing
the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions.
@Ace Foreign-born
people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely event I were
to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance and allow
me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information.
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Maybe it should be called
Wassergate.
@EdwardM Where is
Mr. Wasserman's boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person
in this critical job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would
stop DOJ from firing the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions. There is no Muslim-worship among the ziocons at DNC, who
got caught in the Awan affair. The Muslim card is a desperate argument for the currently unstoppable process of investigation.
Whether Mr. Wasserman or his boss or Clintons' lawyer defending Awan for the undisclosed amount of money, the train is moving
and the word Treason is in the air.
The most serious detail of the Awan affair is the violation of the protocol re classified information: The Awan family had no
security clearance, there was no documentation of the confirmation of the previous employment and no records for their relevant
education/training. Just to reiterate: the family (with a history of fraud and suspicious connections) has an open access to the
classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
Wasserman-Schultz has been directly involved in the greatest breach of the national cybersecurity. She tried to impede the investigation
and she kept the fraudsters on the US-taxpayers-paid payroll up to the day of the arrest of the main culprit. She did that despite
being warned by the police. She should be stripped already of her security clearance and arrested for the breach that was done
on her watch and with her active help.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information. It's all about minimizing risk. My respect for Sikhs would make me inclined to grant security clearances to them
liberally. My overall position, however, is that we have let in far too many foreigners than sane persons would and are stupidly
phlegmatic about leaving illegals here to "make a life for themselves" or "make a contribution" (at the expense of native born
Americans).
You were entitled to the last laugh indeed. We do not lack for native born white Americans. In fact, they are the source of
our fundamental problems.
n no explanation why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it
is a felony.
Not a felony, but a mere civil infraction. Not reporting carrying more than $10k across the border can be either a criminal charge
with fines up to $500k and jail time, or a civil violation which often results in all unreported assets being seized and forfeit
and possibly with a civil penalty of up to the amount forfeit, or even both criminal and civil. The fact that she was allowed
to go on her way with her cash shows an unusual deference to the lady.
@Seamus Padraig His
boss, no doubt, is also an Obama flunkee. That's entirely possible given Trump's bewildering indifference to personnel matters.
He appears to have been hamstrung at the outset, eschewing both philosophical leadership and staffing up with loyalists. His
director of personnel is a bad joke but Trump simply doesn't see it or care. He made a point of saying how he hires good people
and lets them run but competent isn't the same thing as loyal or otherwise appropriate
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... I agreed but it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her and her brother.
@anonymous This is
a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people were spying.
Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince' them to do
so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer ripoff
in DC. It could possibly be a case of intensional incompetence. There are a huge number of people IN Congress that are totally
committed to destruction from within. The Trojan Horse has been within the gates for a surprising number of years. Trevor Loudon
has an interesting video on Amazon titled The Enemies (inclde the "s") Within. If accurate, it IS intensional incompetence. It
may be on Youtube as well.
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis
@Sowhat I agreed but
it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her...and her brother. I just saw this posted. Don't know if it is completely true
but it fits with other information. Devastating.
@Joe Tedesky I'm sorry
F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding
the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between the real, and the phony, narratives which have been
put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy theories' are made to become conspiracy theories. F.G.
said "What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency?" But of course. They're perfect patsies, just like
in our most famous "conspiracy theory" dubbed case.
Were the Awan brothers really gathering intelligence for Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)? And was the ISI on
secret contract with the CIA?
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder ...
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and
still no leads!
In a recent broadcast, Michael Savage suddenly savaged what he called "fake news from the right" such as the Seth Rich murder,
Pizzagate (which he misrepresented as relating to hookers), etc. The presentation seemed curiously disengaged.
My guess is that Savage and his family were physically threatened.
@Sam Shama What evidence
prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection? Al-Attar is a known Hezbollah operative with a connection to Awan. Pakistan
is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
What evidence prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection?
Read what was written: LACK of evidence -- in the face of the logic of antipathies -- prompts the skepticism.
Pakistan is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
Israel shares borders with Lebanon, which is home to Hezbollah; it was at Israel's instigation that Hezbollah came into being.
Does that constitute "evidence" that Israel supports Hezbollah and is also/likewise complicit in Wassergate (h/t Chris
@ #35)?
Or do you prefer that Israel's involvement be airbrushed away ?
@Pachyderm Pachyderma
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis... I think you
are absolutely right that the Pakis passed on information to China and any other country willing to pay for it.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
"terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were
bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be
unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against
unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their
man."
Looks like Bezos has some interesting connections ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. ..."
The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with
foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
use2beadem, 9:47 PM EDT
Publishing the content of these calls is bad for our country, our democracy and the glue
that binds us together.
The Post's disdain of this President is clearly overtaking judgment. Publishing calls of
any President with other world leaders is part of the coup the Post is waging and
participating in against the President.
(I don't remember a single call transcript between Obama and another leader being
published in the Post). The Left surely won't like it when the tables are turned on them.
In this occasional series, we will bring you up to speed on the biggest national security stories
of the week.
On Thursday, The Washington Post
published previously undisclosed transcripts from President Trump's conversations with Mexican
President Enrique Peńa Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The two heated exchanges
provided extraordinary insight into Trump's approach to diplomacy. Trump went back and forth with
the Mexican president on which country will pay for the border wall, telling him that the best solution
is to stop discussing the issue. Trump became exasperated with Australia's prime minister when Turnbull
insisted that Trump would have to honor a deal signed by President Barack Obama that the United States
would accept refugees detained by Australia.
But perhaps one of the most fascinating takeaways from the conversations was Trump's focus on
his political successes and image, not the policy issues the two foreign leaders attempted to steer
the conversations toward.
This looks like attempt of Republicans to placate DemoRats (Neoliberal democrats) at the
expense of Russia... A lot of internal politics involved.
Notable quotes:
"... And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now. After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to re-negotiate it. ..."
"... The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target German energy companies. ..."
And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to
work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now.
After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to
re-negotiate it.
In reality, Trump didn't have a lot of choice on the matter, as the overwhelming majorities
in the House and Senate meant they could've easily overridden a veto if he'd offered it, which
would've been politically embarrassing, particularly on a Russia-themed bill.
The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's
ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened
retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target
German energy companies.
From witch hunt there is a very small distance to "show trials". Show me the man and I will find
the crime --
Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria
, head of Stalin's secret police
Notable quotes:
"... several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, ..."
"... "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter . ..."
... Yet despite the lawyers' resumes and reputations,
several members
of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to
Democrats,
prompting some critics to cry foul on the investigation
and urge Trump to fire Mueller.
Trump himself has even weighed in:
"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American
political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump
said Thursday on
Twitter
.
The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct
characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of
Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose
theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his
unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever
rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting
to share together in that idyllic "
Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now,
waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan"
for sins and improprieties.
This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's
direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another
example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale
of a government lawyer in search of a crime.
Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory
from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all
the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.
Rather than setting specific parameters
for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with
President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal
regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice
and witness intimidation.
As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like
Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search
of a guilty man.
Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory
army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as
much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something
is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the
Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly)
recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal
laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed
to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.
What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal
and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets
his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing
the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel
choices.
The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets
for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome.
As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits
on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance"
and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of
homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date.
"That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,"
writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite
arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."
At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if
that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West
Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the
real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank. ..."
"... In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists. ..."
"... VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company. ..."
"... CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown. ..."
"... After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies. ..."
"... CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media. ..."
"... On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. ..."
"... The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS. ..."
"... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea. ..."
"... In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact. ..."
"... Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. ..."
"... In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page . ..."
"... Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery ..."
"... excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' ..."
"... With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not. ..."
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports
used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the
DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of
Voice
of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking
during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published
by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy
losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference
estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts
have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the
election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence
of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to
Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used
aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations,
attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to
the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied
Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from
conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted
the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of
the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because
the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given
the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap
praise on the company? For instance, back in January,
Comey referred to
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on
Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers,
but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our
Support Page .
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery
forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
to
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the
Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the
80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different
metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided
by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference
to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat
losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat
reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no
way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions
about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing
D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes
(combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high
or not.
"... Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now he is basically all alone being drained. ..."
"... Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was, I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world. ..."
Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now
he is basically all alone being drained.
My only hope for his is being proverbial bull in china shop to ruin everything and expose USA for the whole world.
Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was,
I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world.
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.
I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting
a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran
would fit the bill perfectly.
With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in
times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another
ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.
"... U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank. ..."
"... In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists. ..."
"... VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company. ..."
"... CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown. ..."
"... After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies. ..."
"... CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media. ..."
"... On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. ..."
"... The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS. ..."
"... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea. ..."
"... In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact. ..."
"... Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. ..."
"... In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page . ..."
"... Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery ..."
"... excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' ..."
"... With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not. ..."
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports
used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the
DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of
Voice
of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking
during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published
by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy
losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference
estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts
have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the
election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence
of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to
Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used
aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations,
attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to
the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied
Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from
conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted
the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of
the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because
the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given
the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap
praise on the company? For instance, back in January,
Comey referred to
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on
Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers,
but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our
Support Page .
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery
forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
to
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the
Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the
80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different
metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided
by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference
to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat
losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat
reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no
way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions
about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing
D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes
(combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high
or not.
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.
I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting
a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran
would fit the bill perfectly.
With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in
times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another
ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.
McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win.
One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad
state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate
that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and
what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that
they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.
The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps
rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.
At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine
.? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations
to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump
should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."
Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election
- Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.
Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small
nothings.
Peace --- Art
... ... ...
Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable
fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically
John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA
included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the
deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided
with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice
and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump
is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA
has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.
The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC
was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill
Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment.
Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern
is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.
Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence.
Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based
on Actual Fact
The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded,
falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own
"forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy
(onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste
job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail
so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would
be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in
effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the
FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably
have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever
was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of
the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the
concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with
him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas
were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes
such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of
NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published
another in its highly
enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.
... ... ...
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.
That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack
by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed
on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .
.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer
2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton
bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails?
The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have
emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to
insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."
. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with
a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by
doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.
Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to
publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims
to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move
to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually
the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..
What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television
interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably
anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not
on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but
on Russian meddling in the election.
This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.
Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian
intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would
want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?
As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible.
Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""
This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal
in effect a fraud.
Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade
the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would
presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.
The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the
absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack.
If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that
the evidence that there was is concocted.
Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the
creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover
his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic
narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such
people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.
What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to
be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers.
Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have
been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.
Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their
forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this
field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.
At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed
intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United
States is in profound crisis.
Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I
have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum
which points in that direction.
The problem is that that appointing a Special Prosecutor was a special
operation directed against Trump. So Session behavior was the behavior of
enabler of this special operation. Whether he did so because he was afraid of of
being tarred and feathered with Russian connections himself, or he simply
behayed Trump is unknown. But reclusing himself in such a critical for Trump
Presidency matter is probably betrayal in any case.
Notable quotes:
"... The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation. ..."
"... For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. ..."
"... Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation. ..."
"... I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean. ..."
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the
Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be
said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself
back into the Russia investigation.
Trump would then want his new Attorney General to fire Mueller and fire whomever
Mueller reports to. I can't think of any other reason why Trump would want Sessions
removed.
For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with
something to hide. The problem here is that Trump has such a trashy personality
and such all-around trashy behavior that pure spite and irritation for no good
reason at all is just as good a motive for Trump to want Sessions gone.
Sessions won't want to go. He has a legal-ideological mission at Justice.
He won't resign. He will tough it out in place as long as he can.
Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread
of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to
pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation.
That could be, but we will never know as long as Sessions remains AG.
Because Sessions will remain focused on the DoJ mission, and not get involved
in a spat-fight with Trump.
Also, if indeed Trump did ask Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions declined
to do so; perhaps Sessions has given Trump reason to understand that firing
Sessions would play right into the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative which
the Remove Trump forces are engineering.
And perhaps Sessions will have given Trump reason to understand further
that even having given Sessions the reQUEST to fire Mueller could in itself
further the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative. But in the event of imparting
that further level of understanding unto the Trumpster, Sessions will then
have followed up by reassuring Trump that as long as Trump does not fire
Sessions, no one need ever know that Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller.
In the event of all these dominoes having fallen "just so" in a private
discussion between these two men, Sessions will have reassured Trump that
"no one need ever know about the request" . . . for as long as Sessions
remains AG without being fired.
This is all pure speculation following on from your speculative question.
We of the Great Uncleared will never know what has or hasn't been said behind
the locked doors of steel and oak.
I agree with the first part of your comment, but IMO the reason he wants
Muller (or any Special investigator) removed is that he don't want his past
business dealing and tax returns to be investigated, IMO they are scared
of old days business deals, write off etc. and i think that's what Demos
and Borg wants to pull out in a legal public way, and not the Russian connection.
IMO the real sewer lies in past business and tax deals.
I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation
serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like
a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for
obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart
or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already
been gone through thoroughly, he is clean.
Sessions offered his resignation a while back after he recused himself,
Trump refused. Spicer went quickly and quietly, so would Sessions if he
wanted him gone.
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible
to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and
the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular,
the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive
they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people.
It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have
the internet. Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level
of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone,
whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple
questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then
the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction
simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like
a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs
to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
the key players in the coup against Trump are neocons, which have foreign support. Leaks and based
on them "investigations" along with Russiagate witch hunt proved to be very powerful instruments of
the neocons in the deep state, who seeks to regain the lost power. In other words this is a coup for
absolute power of militarists over the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay, we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations of influence. ..."
"... In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However, below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power. ..."
"... With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. ..."
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors. ..."
"... The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies. ..."
"... The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington ..."
"... From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime. ..."
"... The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party, which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster. ..."
"... From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority, even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions. ..."
"... The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster. ..."
"... The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency. Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful. ..."
"... On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge. ..."
One of the most important outcomes of the Trump Presidency are the revelations describing the
complex competing forces and relations engaged in retaining and expanding US global power ( 'the
empire' ).
The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict
among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay,
we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations
of influence.
The Making of Empire: Countervailing Forces
While 'the empire' may describe the general notion that all pursue a common general goal of dominating
and exploiting targeted countries, regions, markets, resources and labor, the dynamics (the timing
and focus of action) are determined by countervailing forces.
In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration
is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration
has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However,
below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power.
Who Rules 'the Empire'
The executive power is exercised via specialized departments or secretariats – Treasury, Foreign
Affairs (Secretary of State), Interior, and the various security services. In most instances there
is greater or lesser inter-agency competition over budgets, policy and access to the chief executive
and leading decision makers.
In times of crises, when the ruling executive leadership is called into question, this vertical
hierarchy crumbles. The question arises of who will rule and dictate imperial policy?
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly
contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically
elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power
centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging
reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a
course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies
to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions
within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by
these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some
active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose
this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies.
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing
of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists
in and out of Washington
From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations'
to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or
at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.
The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective
security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is
highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime.
Presidential imperial authority has split into fragments of influence, among the legislative,
Pentagon and security apparatus.
Presidential power depends on the Cabinet and its apparatus in a ruthless fight over imperial
power, polarizing the entire political system.
The President Counter-Attacks
The Trump regime has many strategic enemies and few powerful supporters. His advisers are under
attack: Some have been ousted, others are under investigation and face subpoenas for hysterical
McCarthyite hearings and still others may be loyal but are incompetent and outclassed. His
Cabinet appointees have attempted to follow the President's stated agenda, including the repeal of
Obama's disastrous 'Affordable Care Act' and the rollback of federal regulatory systems, with little
success, despite the fact that this agenda has strong backing from the Wall Street bankers and 'Big
Pharma'.
The President's Napoleonic pretensions have been systematically undermined by continuous disparagement
from the mass media and the absence of plebian support after the election.
The President lacks a mass media base of support and has to resort to the Internet and personal
messages to the public, which are immediately savaged by the mass media.
The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party,
which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform
bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster.
From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority,
even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign
policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining
allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions.
The September Showdown
The big test of power will be focused on the raising of the public debt ceiling and the continued
funding of the entire federal government. Without agreement there will be a massive governmental
shutdown – a kind of 'general strike' paralyzing essential domestic and foreign programs – including
the funding of Medicare, the payment of Social Security pensions and the salaries of millions of
government and Armed Forces employees.
The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order
to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster.
The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing
economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent
threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency.
Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful.
Both sides will blame each other for the mounting breakdown. Temporary Treasury expedients will
not save the situation. The mass media will go into a hysterical mode, from political criticism to
demanding open regime change. The Presidential regime may assume dictatorial powers in order 'to
save the country'.
Congressional moderates will demand a temporary solution: A week-to-week trickle of federal spending.
However, the coup-makers and the 'Bonapartists' will block any 'rotten compromise'. The military
will be mobilized along with the entire security and judicial apparatus to dictate the outcome.
Civil society organization will appeal to the emerging power configurations to defend their special
interests. Discharged public and private employees will march as pensioners and schoolteachers go
without funding. Lobbyists, ranging from oil and gas interests to defenders of Israel, will each
demand their priority treatment.
The power configuration will flex their muscles, while the foundations of Congressional, Judicial
and Presidential institutions will shake and shutter.
On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting
threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the
world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge.
The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to lay claims
on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with Russia, Iran and
China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule.
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own
homeland as " a kind of
triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency.
His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the
progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements
of the organized Jewish community.
Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump
emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of
phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing
a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume
office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy
in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely
in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social
and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever,
mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly
less circumspect. In March, for example, he
wrote in the
JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."
Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not
mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation
of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for
speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious
and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by
Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:
Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According
to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes
it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times.
What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump?
The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that
anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.
How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.
Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest
pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity
in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out
personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter
from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by
The Final
Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National
Socialists.
To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending
the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the
Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot
of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected
populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her
email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets,
the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant
by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch
missiles at China and North Korea.
Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without
fear of a libel suit.
Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette
dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara.
McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male.
The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply
uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his
opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers
no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.
The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right
here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist
conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation
with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the
end of his review of
the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the
plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.
The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation
and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.
There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian
has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.
Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:
Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof
I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more,
watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.
And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:
Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?
Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable.
The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.
James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first
rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think
about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!
There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must
ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed
in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK.
This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.
The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube
interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see
prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had
managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.
Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism.
He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.
Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd
world immigration into the US & Europe.
"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did
not mention Jews or antisemitism."
Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted
merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive
to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.
The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple
of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:
They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume
or venue or media that matters.
Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You
can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.
But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What
would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?
@NoseytheDuke
True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.
As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse
of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly
super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. "
every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government
proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/
How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly
"moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts
with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian
rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."
@Ludwig
Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from
slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.
The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.
The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.
One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.
Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics
or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the
hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making
big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.
The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt.
and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was
in his opthalmolagy practice.
That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.
Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense
of false consciousness.
Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder,
seems to being their house style.
I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's
rights.
Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here,
were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!
Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.
For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in
Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing
to me.
Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.
@jilles
dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .
I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between
the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?
Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic,
twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".
What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged
transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left
variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred
warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning
with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would
also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the
only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the
human race.
Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives"
is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their
own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks
on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,
How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?
The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time
span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.
Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's
case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.
@zzzzzzz " but the
Deep State knows how to box"
Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her
office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to
her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? " free access
to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ."
Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
"... Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this. ..."
"... Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences. I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy
Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a
kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.
He asked for it so he could play tough guy on the world stage. Only a fool, (especially at his age), would actually want the
job, so I hope he doesn't expect any sort of pity party.
When dealing with the left, you can never apologize and never back down. Double down and punch back twice as hard. Anyone on
the alt right could have told Trump this.
Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this.
Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price.
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald
Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that
supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free
ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have
to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes
brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.
Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about
Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie
becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly
difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the
effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth
just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda
campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
Trump lost the support of the American people when he bowed to Netanyohu, backed land theft
in Settlement Goland, used false flag reports to justify firing rockets into Syria, and allowed USA
resources to be used to assist the Saudi decimation of Yemen.
If trump wants Americans to back his USA leadership, he needs to cut off all aid to ISRAEL,
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and all other foreign interest or nations, stand down in South America particularly
in Venezuela, dump the federal reserve, vacate all USA military bases in foreign places, gather and
return all USA weapons, materials and supplies to American soil in USA controlled America, refuse
to allow any branch of government or military to buy any object or service of any kind or to fund
any NPO operating anywhere in the world but in America, bring home USA-citizen-troops and dismiss
all others, consolidate all intelligence and spy agencies under one roof, and appoint to its head,
someone loyal to Trump.
Without domestic American support, Trump is on his own in dealing with his problems with
global Zionism and the power play over who is to call the shots within the corrupt USA.. To date
340,000,000 Americans have seen no difference in Trump's leadership from all the others. The USA
remains a very small in number, very rich, group of elected and career persons who collectively
enjoy get out of jail free cards and who use the power of the USA all over the world to separate
Americans from their money. Everyday Americans need a platform for their elected representatives
to follow. This is mine. what is yours?
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own
homeland as " a kind of
triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency.
His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the
progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements
of the organized Jewish community.
Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump
emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of
phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing
a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume
office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy
in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely
in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social
and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever,
mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly
less circumspect. In March, for example, he
wrote in the
JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."
Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not
mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation
of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for
speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious
and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by
Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:
Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According
to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes
it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times.
What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump?
The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that
anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.
How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.
Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest
pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity
in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out
personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter
from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by
The Final
Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National
Socialists.
To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending
the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the
Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot
of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected
populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her
email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets,
the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant
by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch
missiles at China and North Korea.
Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without
fear of a libel suit.
Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette
dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara.
McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male.
The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply
uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his
opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers
no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.
The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right
here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist
conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation
with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the
end of his review of
the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the
plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.
The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation
and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.
There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian
has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.
Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:
Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof
I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more,
watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.
And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:
Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?
Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable.
The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.
James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first
rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think
about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!
There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must
ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed
in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK.
This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.
The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube
interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see
prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had
managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.
Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism.
He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.
Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd
world immigration into the US & Europe.
"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did
not mention Jews or antisemitism."
Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted
merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive
to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.
The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple
of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:
They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume
or venue or media that matters.
Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You
can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.
But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What
would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?
@NoseytheDuke
True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.
As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse
of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly
super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. "
every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government
proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/
How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly
"moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts
with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian
rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."
@Ludwig
Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from
slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.
The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.
The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.
One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.
Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics
or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the
hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making
big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.
The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt.
and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was
in his opthalmolagy practice.
That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.
Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense
of false consciousness.
Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder,
seems to being their house style.
I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's
rights.
Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here,
were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!
Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.
For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in
Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing
to me.
Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.
@jilles
dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .
I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between
the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?
Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic,
twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".
What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged
transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left
variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred
warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning
with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would
also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the
only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the
human race.
Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives"
is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their
own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks
on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,
How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?
The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time
span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.
Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's
case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded." ..."
"... That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ..."
"... Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment. ..."
karlof1 @35 - Thanks for the link to Mercouris' article. What he is realizing is what many
have been alluding to for quite some time.
"
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it
correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than
this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which
sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded."
"
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the
political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis
."
The U.S. government is in a 'profound crisis.'
It is impossible to forget that Hillary was the anointed one to follow zero. The moment
the numbers came in on the eve of the election showing Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the
moment the United States government entered the crisis.
What little we are slowly learning is that Zero politicized every department charged with
conducting the affairs on behalf of the people. What we learned shortly after Trump took
office from an investigation conducted by Sen Grassley of the Sen Judiciary committee was the
tip of the iceberg, that was all of the financial settlements from the banking industry
following the 2008 financial meltdown went into a DOJ slush fund that was then dispersed to
support groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and many, many more. Sessions ended those
funds from being handed out within the first couple of month's of his taking office.
It was little reported. But think about the millions upon millions in those settlements.
As well, I'd be remiss not to make note, but as part of the numerous settlements, DOJ would
suggest, as part of the deal, that the bank or business settling make a 'tax deductible'
donation to organizations of the DOJ's choosing. This was once the Chicago way of doing
business, maybe it still is.
Had the 'anointed' one won trust these groups, good or bad, would have only grown and
continued their disruptive practices on the streets of anywhere USA. Had that continued
cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, etc would have been begging for federal help to cease
such disruption aka Martial Law.
I could go on and on about the many projects/programs Zero put in place only to have the
anointed one to carry them through to fruition. All such programs ended on the eve of the
election.
Also take notice that there has not been a horrific shooting since at least October, maybe
even September, here in the U.S. One might want to ask why?
Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile
back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing
the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's
startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan
for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack,
but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence,
Warner's 'choked' comment.
Oh, there was a plan in place alright, and we're only at the beginning of the curtain
being pulled back. In the meantime those radical leaders in congress who hide behind the D or
R label are more than happy to grind the people's business to a complete halt.
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. ..."
"... 'investigations' ..."
"... 'regime change'. ..."
"... Clearly, Petras's reading of the splattered entrails augers for an almost certain overseas war. ..."
"... Always unifying, cathartic, and expedient, aggression towards a commonly perceived enemy is a sure bet that is almost impossible to resist for high-stakes rollers whose survival instincts have proven their efficacy time and again over a life time in the game. ..."
"... The irony is, the US is currently "experiencing" its own medicine of regime change, which was tried before on so many unfortunate "countries of interest." The main movers (coup makers) believe that they will become more powerful and overall better off after the coup d'etat. ..."
"... The low burlesque of the ongoing American regime-change would be ridiculous if it was not extremely dangerous -- actually, deadly. ..."
"... What is truly amazing is the at-hand crowds of the relatively young and well-to-do "activists" supporting the coup d'etat out of a livid hatred of Trump (and his whole family). ..."
"... The coup plotters against Trump are grabbing a tiger by the tail. The plotters are undermining the democratic institutions of the State. Should they succeed US democracy will be significantly weakened & delegitimised in the minds of the public. ..."
"... The coup-plotters dwell and circulate within various power configurations that are virtually untouchable. And these power-hungry insurgents will not compromise. ..."
"... The analysis of UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs of Trump's policy is that Trump understands that the days of USA world empire (aspirations) are over, Deep State is the part of USA unable and unwilling to see this. ..."
"... All sounds very plausible. In such a crisis which way will the military fall. If towards Trump then maybe they will deal with CIA/FBI/Homeland Security who are enemies of the people? ..."
"... Unfortunately again, the "Western" system of "democracy" (i.e. disguised plutocracy) promotes to executive decision-making positions people who are not intelligent or moral enough to handle this situation. ..."
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly
contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the
democratically elected regime.
While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is riven by rival power centers. At
the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under
Presidential control: They operate in coordination with insurgent Congressional power centers,
mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business,
merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking
damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They
publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial
allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt,
many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President
will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current
directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some
active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others
oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military
policies.
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing
of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state
militarists in and out of Washington
From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of
'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass
public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.
Neddal, July 25, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT • 200 Words
Clearly, Petras's reading of the splattered entrails augers for an almost certain
overseas war.
Always unifying, cathartic, and expedient, aggression towards a commonly perceived
enemy is a sure bet that is almost impossible to resist for high-stakes rollers whose
survival instincts have proven their efficacy time and again over a life time in the
game.
There is nothing like a few dozens tomahawks lobbed around here and there to bring tears
of joy and awe to the most jaded of adversaries and have them line-up behind your cause.
Of course, no shortage exists of candidate beneficiaries for such largess on the part of
the imperium, given the very laudable nature of their sacrifices, honorably expended on
behalf of humanity to save their too-big-to fail benefactor and the leader of the free
world.
The list of likely early volunteers is sure to include, among others of course, Iran,
North Korea, Venezuela, Philippines, and a few nameless and/or insignificant places, abundant
and equally eager to serve, in Africa and the Middle East.
" prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime
change'."
The irony is, the US is currently "experiencing" its own medicine of regime change,
which was tried before on so many unfortunate "countries of interest." The main movers (coup
makers) believe that they will become more powerful and overall better off after the coup
d'etat. What else could be expected from people with a cartoonish understanding of
history and with opportunistic profiteering as their man craft? -- Pygmies.
The coup d'etat-minded "sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy " consist of moral
and intellectual pygmies. The low burlesque of the ongoing American regime-change would
be ridiculous if it was not extremely dangerous -- actually, deadly.
What is truly amazing is the at-hand crowds of the relatively young and well-to-do
"activists" supporting the coup d'etat out of a livid hatred of Trump (and his whole
family). Some of these "activists" believe that Trump "is destroying" something "very
important" that has been "built" under Obama. How these delusions re Obama legacy have
reached the heads of the "activists" is hard to explain.
animalogic, July 26, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT • 100 Words
The coup plotters against Trump are grabbing a tiger by the tail. The plotters are
undermining the democratic institutions of the State. Should they succeed US democracy will
be significantly weakened & delegitimised in the minds of the public.
In the absence of a massive, sustained & coordinated public outcry, a precedent will
be set: should the deep state & its elite supporters dislike a president or ANY elected
official they can & will remove that individual via whatever nefarious means work
best.
And the public ? Well, they can "like it or lump it" .
Grandpa Charlie, July 26, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 200 Words
On the diagnosis (analysis) side of Petras' essay, I see one great omission: no where does
Petras mention the neocons or their pay master, the PRC, or more precisely, the Standing
Committee of the CCP. Surely, that should have appeared somewhere, especially in the
parenthetical listing of "oligarchs" in the sixth paragraph of the section headed "Who Rules
the Empire".
... ... ...
Mark Green, July 26, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT • 100 Words
Interesting synthesis by Petras. Yes, the Empire is genuine, but wildly disunited. As a
nation, we are fracturing along lines that didn't exist just a generation ago. And the cracks
are really showing. Trouble ahead.
The coup-plotters dwell and circulate within various power configurations that are
virtually untouchable. And these power-hungry insurgents will not compromise. They want
Trump's head. There will be blood.
jilles dykstra, July 26, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT • 200 Words
I wonder if the present USA can be compared to the Brtish empire in the thirties. Without
USA military help Britain would have had to capitulate in november 1917, yet even now in
november, november 1918 was the German capitulation, Britis celebrate their victory with
poppies.
French have the same aberration, every year they celebrate the German capitulation of
1945. Their defeat in three weeks in 1940 is conveniently forgotten.
The analysis of UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs of Trump's policy is that Trump
understands that the days of USA world empire (aspirations) are over, Deep State is the part
of USA unable and unwilling to see this.
British military planners in the thirties warned the politicians over and over again that
GB would be unable to defend the empire in case of war, an empire from GB trough the
Mediterranean to Singapore and New Zealand. Yet politicians thought they would be ready for
war in september 1939. Chamberlain's 1938 Munich was just for buying time. They succeeded,
through Polish provocations, to get their war just in time.
It was the beginning of the end of the empire, as Churchill found out in Casablanca, he
was at the mercy of FDR, who wanted his own empire.
ThereisaGod, July 26, 2017 at 7:54 am GMT
All sounds very plausible. In such a crisis which way will the military fall. If
towards Trump then maybe they will deal with CIA/FBI/Homeland Security who are enemies of the
people?
Tom Welsh, July 26, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT • 100 Words
@Neddal
Unfortunately for us all, the traditional remedy of a "splendid little war" is rapidly
ceasing to be available. On the continent of Asia – where American aggression and
murder has been focused – there exist great powers that can match the USA's military
strength. As that strength extends to a thermonuclear (and chemical and biological) arsenal
that could destroy all human life on the planet many times over, if it is deployed against an
adversary of equal power the outcome is obvious. Everyone dies.
Unfortunately again, the "Western" system of "democracy" (i.e. disguised plutocracy)
promotes to executive decision-making positions people who are not intelligent or moral
enough to handle this situation.
They are entirely capable of ramming their heads into a jar too narrow to escape from.
@jacques sheete Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm,
but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military
and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American
masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while
convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak. During the
campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration.
He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded
executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats"
at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
@Erebus During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to
have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him,
and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the
black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope...
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to
rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now
on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the
same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy')
is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis!
Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make
him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd
and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors,
unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever
is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.
"... The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks: ..."
"... Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute ..."
"... The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
..."
The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks:
* Pardon Sirhan Sirhan
* Order immediate release of NARA records in accordance with law
* Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute
* Give tacit approval to international exposure of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation by CIA
This will provoke a crisis where the soft coup is constrained by concerted pressure from civil society and the international
community.
The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
US victims including Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen have ratified the Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations
to war crimes and crimes against humanity, so the US cannot run the clock out, as it has tried to do by failing to criminalize
torture and decriminalizing its favorite war crimes, outrages against human dignity and denial of the rights of trial. CIA proliferation
is a boiling issue in the treaty bodies but it's completely suppressed from US public awareness.
If Trump can't take the bull by the horns, CIA* is going to destroy him.
* This is CIA in Fletcher Prouty's sense, including deep-cover CIA agents inserted throughout the three branches of government.
The DCI has the get-out-of-jail card, so this is all CIA's show. All the other agency 'factions' work for CIA
Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make
him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd
and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors,
unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever
is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.
"... In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'. ..."
"... The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad. ..."
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents. ..."
"... Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
"... Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order. ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive
elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation
has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and
the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in
these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying
and peaceful protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration
of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive
institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements
threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including
the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often
intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global
domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration
where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine
– under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined
in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process.
The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional
norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and
quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic
process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated
and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity
of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the
political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The
mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex
scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the
legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory,
a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office
– by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail
members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state
electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia
campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and
US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress
and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with
Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate
'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump
was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British
intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate
media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take
the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero'
and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the
CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication
by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited,
the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures
hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his
skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly
charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief
Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts
(of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power
dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens
the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and
rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing
ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded
and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence'
hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump,
the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany .
A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and
imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits
their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New
York. http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"
By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST
"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so
it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned
naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities,
all bad. Bet on this one:
..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas
damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family
(or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will
carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.
That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as
a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the
evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he
delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties
a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars
and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against
indictment, which is not guaranteed.
It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking
the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario
comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third
party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the
deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.
If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his
siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.
If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political
consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer,
and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will
do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the
Russian collusion investigation
The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that
happens
"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"
By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT
"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.
...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between
Hillary Clinton and Russia...
...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according
to the Post."...
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system
is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional
investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress'
and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing
powerful US oligarchs.
For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to
wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of
mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business
oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each
other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous
conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.
The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences
for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs,
have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats
of judicial action).
Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as
it now exists in the United States.
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
What the 'Conflict' is Not About
The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or
independent governments.
Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque
police state apparatus.
Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards
or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.
Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies
against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction
of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.
What the Oligarchical Struggle is About
There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars
and 'interventions'.
The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their
policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars
in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the
disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally
with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine
and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea
and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA),
while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment
deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis'
(US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and
divide the country.
The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and
nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire.
Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump
focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.
While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and
means.
For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest
. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US
military dominance.
Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities
The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions
favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela.
They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display
slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout
the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.
These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition'
denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition'
of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.
Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from
a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs'
struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional
order.
Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State
The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish
over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The
conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.
The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus
(NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry.
Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the
judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special
Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General
Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session
(a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course
of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally
within the Judiciary.
The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security
impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under
GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.
The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial
Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR),
which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of
unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations,
academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust
the President.
The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers.
He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal
majorities for the Republican Party.
The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability
to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.
Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment,
taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from
the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.
The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of
the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.
Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned
to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.
The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial
complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.
Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American
Zionists.
But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's
overseas opposition.
NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to
the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new
NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.
In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact
on the domestic correlation of forces.
Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in
the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.
While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical
, not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.
Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops
in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen;
and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.
The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of
former President Obama's seven wars.
While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing
the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.
Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power
depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.
Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up
for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for
known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US
military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive
cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser
reductions in social programs.
Conclusion
The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President
of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.
The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant
and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.
The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has
denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall
Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.
Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority
of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.
The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless
lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly
mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.
Epilogue
After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries
in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of
spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.
The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the
'Oval Office'.
The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow
about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.
Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals.
The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors
and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand
even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent
turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!
" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in
serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking
advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "
Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than
the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit,
also unimaginable.
So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation,
is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration
into Europe, and so on, and so forth.
Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes
almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same
everywhere now.
Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The
fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook
postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM
would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the
'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!
This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of
advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may
be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican
enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he
should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels
he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation
of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something
he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety
of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from
his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture,
it is time to hit back and hit hard.
All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was
and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights
which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.
The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic,
either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.
It was designed and has functioned always as a de factoresoligrcharum .
It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though
it is an agonizingly slow process
Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points
out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump
prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements.
He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these
are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.
What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually
psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump
could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues"
become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get
away with it)
A couple of negative points in the article:
Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ?
"Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "
Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return
to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good
odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid
– they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.
More positively: authorise spot ON here:
"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become
mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor
and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's
cart."
May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American
Democracy
Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing
in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He
won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."
Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."
PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly
and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding
the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could
have imagined,
@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty
reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.
@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original
source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of
freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence
testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on
another fabulous UNZ site.:
Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions
many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.
"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work
of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be
turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it
could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.
This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks
email leaker.
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob.
The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed.
The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).
Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to
allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as
any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs"
are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp,
its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these
greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel
being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares
the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end
of business tomorrow.
This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions
of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank
them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers
fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground
at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this
money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually
mattered?
Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of
the World as you know it, but I feel fine.
" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those
who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries,
who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe
in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity
for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend
him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order
to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent,
or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs
they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and
accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force,
they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones
failed
From Machiavelli's The Prince
If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance
of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited
a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two
years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression
was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come
to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through
his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers
made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL
ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY
RULING CLASS.
If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the
case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth
Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security
team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental
agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic
and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand
scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle
decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.
Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much
he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump
needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take
to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security
apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger
of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will
not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put
him in an ever weaker position.
@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically
a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the
debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.
@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book
Propaganda literally titled propaganda.
Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations.
This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse
of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on
democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism"
is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or
elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those
who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.
- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're
a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph
Sobran
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain,
lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years
ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter
and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards
Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election'
becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see
Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.
@Che Guava"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating.
A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that
passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most
in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me
and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.
May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention
Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset.
If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but
at what point do the American People say enough is enough?
@RobinG"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good
for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of
insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened,
as long as I keep track of where they are..
Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.
So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million
dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that
is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.
Madness.
Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.
After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised
his voice against it.
@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people
are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump
was a different guy in the campaign, no?)
@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front
of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.
How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.
@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that,
she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following,
and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And
actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.
Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's
"March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not
technically slick.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che,
I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying)
but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive
glare.
What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap
between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep
State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate
with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the
2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump
Resistance;
Politico
reported
that
the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the
Democratic
Party
to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the
hearings she was involved in, she
launched
the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan,
Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have
broken the law.
The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure
as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over
1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to
file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney
general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office
uncovered.
"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office
made," Harris
told
The
Hill
. "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the
facts lead us."
Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader
of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that
involved donors to her campaign.
In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin,
gave
$8,750
to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank
donated
$6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also
donated
$850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.
In 2014, the Center for American Progress
graded
California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to
decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.
Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of
the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the
opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California
criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.
In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was
hired
as
campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open
Society Foundations. In 2014,
TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization
operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which
effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report
cited
that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change
California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney
general. Lenore Anderson also
led
Vote
Safe, another Soros' funded organization.
In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson
sold
OneWest
for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the
maximum amount
to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris
spoke
at
Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and at
Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference
.
This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to
why the
Democratic
establishment
is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold
corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.
Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to
Donald
Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the
failing party.
Billionaire George Soros
held a closed door
conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and
was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
On the weekend of Trump's inauguration,
David Brock
hosted a
retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's
a--."
On July 15, Page Sixreported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met
with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.
Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended,
including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also
attended a separate luncheon
hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling
his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy,
but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against
his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their
ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national
Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives
and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This
dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's
victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and
not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast
media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud".
As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on
the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch
effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic
well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations
with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly
lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters
among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election
to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but
the whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing
globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump
campaign was a failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over
the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is
to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not
one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the
US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that
the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance
of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction
to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy"
is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more
optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about
my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign
promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup
is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche
of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian
hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for
the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled
the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed
after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists'
and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon,
while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping
[?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary
to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers
.such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the
elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria
is a member in good standing of the UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR.
[That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything
that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing
laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent
such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such
as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected
government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member
in good standing of the UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that
is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing
laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such
things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering
as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been
sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads
all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten
some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding
them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his
shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly
equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their
machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office
and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will
require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons
are convinced that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of
action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump
has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return
sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend),
and outplay him at his own game. ,
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's
recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to
the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the
real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look
at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among
leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and
Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would
necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population.
This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get
a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel
and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora
left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe
and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater
good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's
support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big
deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities
available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do
the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a
doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project
like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same
scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew
with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether
he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work
in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere
and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is
"just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will
now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade
buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and
forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate
reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression
of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject
matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or
do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary
and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent
Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need"
for a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course
be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally
white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way
up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream
media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year
2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of
the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not
one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US"
trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the
neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop
Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers'
and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons
controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA
This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining
'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally
neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them?
No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long
before Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of
Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called
"elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders"
in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home
and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never
been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic
and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US
have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would
hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ
as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the
cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's
brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon,
and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us.
There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a
psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the
Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect,
our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic
below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial
aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the
last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government.
All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin
Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian
civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare
subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers
$13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard
working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability.
Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion
. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top
1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The
interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings,
as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain
700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest
of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent
on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared
by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as
with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates
a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic
and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash
the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress,
is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional
Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing
accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous
debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student
Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the
1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth
would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful
government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free
people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal
politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian
governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer
etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining
while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda
and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before
any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing
business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the
new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts
and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and
2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased
by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI
are probably split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees
joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial
projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their
employers.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky
political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped
to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and
can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has
to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity
and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and
outplay him at his own game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most
power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP.
Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on
grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details
pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there
is , before Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK
have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad
their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador
to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the
most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to
put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the
late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War
I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug
the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN,
BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms
on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground
to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but
world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was
breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC,
ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role
of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at
Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what
was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first
of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian
diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies –
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public
a peek inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough!
This shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via
their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp
.
@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons
and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US
administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the
role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue
at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this
is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary
first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what
Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies -
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will
result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel
can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing
for them. ,
@joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members
of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats
of the American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision
to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange,
too, to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to
"sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it
has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries'
report cards.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora
Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just
more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya,
his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country,
on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across
the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow. What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does
anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut
every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something
"else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen.
That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return.
What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel,
one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are
fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding
not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem
and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They
did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today
.combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to
take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too,
to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully
American Democracy" .
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first
string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying
to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the
people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were
critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the
first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
Trump on Sessions this afternoon, to the WSJ, adding to his morning tweetstorm:
"I'm just looking at it," the president said when asked how long he could continue to
criticize Mr. Sessions without firing him. "I'll just see. It's a very important
thing."
A president repeatedly trashing a cabinet member in the press is sending an unmistakable
message:
resign now
. His target Ku Klux Jeff seems to be a bit hard of hearing.
Tinfoil hat mode: What if Trump is selecting the worst of the worst of congressional
Republicans for his cabinet positions, just so he can force them out of their representative
or senate seat? Fire them a few months down the line, and their replacement is a novice with
no political capital to stand up to him, and selected via a special election that carries
little "will of the people" clout.
Or maybe trump wants an AG who will go catch big fish like the clintons and like amazon
and Mr. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III just wants to lock up black people carrying dime
bags???
Sessions is like that twisted bitter 1000 year old hag next door's little snippy chihuahua
that must be 1000 years old that always somehow gets loose when you're going out and tries to
bite you on the ankle every fricking day so one day you snap and kick the thing into the wall
and the next night it comes back as a zombie chihuahua white walker dog. That is
Sessions.
Yeah, he does remind me of my neighbors' herd of yappers. Much sound and fury, signifying
nothing. Except an ongoing disturbance of the neighborhood peace.
My guess is that Trump knows firing Mueller would be a bad move, so he's taking his rage
out on Sessions for creating this problem for him in the first place by recusing himself.
Haha I'll join you. With all of his actions, half the time I think Trump is an
Accelerationist (or Blanquist) who's goals are to eventually lead us to some form of
Socialism.
...It is more than 200 kilometres from the current Russian frontier with Belarus and the
historical border with the territory which for a thousand years has been occupied by
Lithuanian, Polish, German and Russian imperial as well as Soviet forces. Kushner's
grandparents
actually came from Navahrudak
(Навагрудак), spelled in Russian as
Новогрудок (Novogrudok). The
meaning of the word, which was first used for the place in the 11
th
century, is
"new little town". When the Germans arrived in July 1941, there were 20,000 residents, 10,000
of whom, including the Kushners, were Jewish. The Kushners escaped; the majority who didn't
were killed. Kushner reveals he doesn't know. His, and everyone else's mistake, is 834
kilometres off the mark.
...But Kushner admits that during the campaign he "had incoming [sic] contacts with people
from approximately 15 countries." He also had "hundreds" of "calls, letters and emails from
people outside the United States." He says he asked Henry Kissinger for "advice on policy for
the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what
messaging would resonate." He says he spoke once for "less than a minute" with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at an April 2016 Trump campaign speech in Washington, when the
Russian was accompanied by three other foreign ambassadors; Kushner doesn't name them.
He denies any record of receiving or remembering two reported telephone calls with Kislyak
between April and November, and had forgotten his name when, on November 9, an official
congratulatory note arrived for Trump from President Vladimir Putin. From November 9 to January
20, Kushner says he received "over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries They
included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Bibi
Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more."
A neophyte in foreign affairs as Kushner confesses himself to be, he doesn't reveal that
Videgaray and he set up candidate Trump's visit to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President on
August 31. The Mexican reaction to that was extremely hostile. Videgaray was forced to resign
as finance minister on September 7, but promoted to foreign minister on January 4. Videgaray
might be charged with colluding with the Americans to advance himself, with Kushner as
co-conspirator, but no senator on the Intelligence Committee is reported to have asked Kushner
about that.
Kushner may not know the nicknames of Videgaray or King Abdullah, but he certainly refers to
the Israeli prime minister as Bibi, an appellation well-known to Israelis and Jews worldwide.
His official name is Benjamin, and there is ample evidence that Kushner has been familiar with
Netanyahu for many years. Kushner's father is also widely reported in Israel as Netanyahu's
personal friend. Kushner's slip in yesterday's evidence was to reveal just how familiar he is
with that foreign official, who met with Trump and Kushner for a campaign appearance in Israel
in June, five months before Election Day.
The special relationship between Israel and the US cannot be collusion – that's a rule
of US politics. The rule wasn't quite so fixed in the 1980s when the FBI caught US officials at
spying, stealing and smuggling on behalf of Israel, and sent one of them to prison;
click for
details
Nor can God and the Orthodox Jewish group known as Chabad-Lubavitch be reported as colluding
in Trump's victory, despite the evidence that Kushner and his wife Ivanka prayed for it at a
Lubavitcher shrine on the weekend before the poll.
The Israeli and Jewish community media
also
claim
the possibility that Kushner's pilgrimage reminded God to intervene when there was a
suspected assassination attempt against Trump in Arizona at the same time.
The inadvertence of these slips in Kushner's statement reinforces his claim that he knows
the difference between collusion with Russians and special relationships with Mexican, Israeli
and Lubavitcher friends. The US press and the US appear convinced of the same thing.
... ... ...
Simes (Дмитрий
Саймс), son of Jewish dissidents
expelled
from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978, is the
Uriah Heep
of Russian-American advisors,
ingratiating themselves to both sides and making a living out of obsequious intermediation. He
was Richard Nixon's factotum when the disgraced president visited Moscow. Nixon died in 1994
leaving Simes his think-tank as an inheritance. Its motto is "America's Voice for Strategic
Realism". Kissinger is the honorary
chairman
, succeeding the American
International Group (AIG) fraudster Hank Greenberg.
Helmer provides a wealth of background about people and their role, institutions and
practices. It is the kind of information that puts things in quite a different light -- and it
turns out to be intriguing.
Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way (gifts that should have been laden with personal symbolism for Kushner, sending
that high-powered Gorkov banker, letting the ambassador pester Kushner for meetings). All for
naught, due to spectacularly poor assessment of the other party by the Russians, and a
clueless Trump team (with Kushner supremely ignorant of his supposedly cherished
Eastern-European Jewish heritage).
The picture of that milieu full of go-betweens, cats' paws, and assorted parasites is not
pretty. Contrarily to the often agape descriptions of "Putin's regime", the Russians appear
to have been rather incompetent in that specific occurrence.
"Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way" – Well, I think the dirt on offer was of the wrong kind, no?
Funny you got here first "Visitor".
Somebody is always first by definition. There was always a mad rush to be the "Me first
commenter number One!" over at James Klunster's blog, for example.
"reveals just how ignorant Kushner, his legal and other advisors are of Russia"
It is a big deal that Kushner didn't know the proper spelling of the town his grandparents
came from? Heck, I don't even know the name of the town my grandparents came from –
much less how to spell it.
Interesting point on Mexico and Israel / collusion
For better or worse I think there are more US citizens who know who Bibi is and not many
who know the nickname of the King of Jordan.
1. I've come across the nickname Bibi so many times and I am only a casual reader of
mainstream news.
Perhaps it is that many people in the mainstream media who are 'personal friends' of
Bibi.
2. You know your grandparents home town either when they sat down with you and showed it
to you on a map with its English spelling on an American map, or an old map with unknown
words on it (a Belarussian one maybe), or they talked about it many times, so that you know,
but only know how to say it (however imperfectly). Then, when it came for you to write it
down the first time (or may not have to the first time, but the first time someone more
familiar with the area reads it), you didn't get the spelling exactly right, and even
confused it with any town.
I think the stupidity is anyone on the left buying into this fake McCarthyite Russia scare -- just because a racketeering war criminal lost the election. For one, Hillary took naked
bribes from Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the
transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:
And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank,
Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:
and
"Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy "
regardless of the fact that all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack
DNC.
google "Russia hacked DNC".
I think that the average American reading this article would half-way through roll their
eyes and say this is so micro nit-picky that there is no there there.
No kidding. My summary of the first objection: "Kushner would certainly known that his
grandfather was from Novafreakingrad, Ukraine, not Novafrakingrad, Russia if the idiot hadn't
realized he was reading the wrong cyrillic alphabet."
Or something like that. I'm usually interested in trivia, but this strained my limit to
the breaking point. Like Bill Smith said in his comment above, most of us would be hard
pressed to know what country our forbears came from, let alone what city. I think if this is
the dumbest thing Kushner writes or says while he's working for the White House, he'll be the
best Director of the Office of American Innovation evah – even if every other President
had at least two of them.
God forbid that we talk to the Russians! Oh my. Far better to start a nuclear war that
ultimately involves all of the nuclear powers, even the North Koreans. Then we can solve
climate change by gifting the planet back to the extremophiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Shake and bake. A billion years from now, Earth will be covered with multitudinous
expressions of life.
Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!
Military industrial complex needs your money my friend. Nothing personal. This is strictly
business :-)
"Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!"
The last thing MIC cares is what millions of Americans, who elected Trump, want.
If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ostensibly on a fact
finding mission re the Trump administration's alleged collusion with Russian government
officials and business people, take their assignment seriously they could use Helmer's brisk,
no-nonsense just the facts ma'am approach as a template for their proceedings. The key word
being "if"
Reading the American and European press it's striking how the reporting on countries in
the 'axis of MIC designated evildoers' is almost always grossly, or hilariously, depending on
your disposition, reductionist. While Western countries have a complex and multilayered
system of government administration the "evil" countries are ruled by bad dudes with one name
(North Korea's Kim Jong-un excepted) – Putin, Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi – who have
absolute control over civilians military alike. It really is a South Parkesque view of the
world. One can imagine a Putin or Assad grimly overseeing a trembling clerk issuing licenses
at a provincial DMV, because Leader Knows Best of course.
Back in the real world this cartoonish dumbing down means every action – real,
alleged or made up – the West doesn't like is traced back to The Leader. If a military
unit goes nuts and slaughters a bunch of non-combatants , a nasty but not uncommon occurrence
in wartime, it must be because The Leader ordered it. The Syrian Arab Army, to name one
example, becomes "Assad's Army" and is composed of "soldiers loyal to Bashar al-Assad". The
media would
never
talk about a Western, or "allied" army like this.
In the transcript Helmer cites, Gorkov's gifts to Kushner, something that might only be an
innocent overlooking of protocol, can easily be spun in such a way that it becomes part of
that evil rascal Putin's ploy to influence an American president. That's why these committees
and hearings are a joke that belong in a low-budget sequel to Dr. Strangelove. Every person
with a functioning brain knows there is a double-standard at play here. Even the maniacal
partisan nutjobs agitating for Cold War 2.0 would have to admit this if logic and reason
still have any meaning.
Demonization of Putin is very profitable. This new round of McCarthyism enforced on the
country proved to be the strategy chosen by neoliberal elite to return Dems to power and
suppress populists within the party. Smash critique of neoliberalism equating them with
Russian agents, who are trying to undermine the state.
There were rumors that original McCarthyism campaign partially was designed to suppress
"leaks" about export of nazy scientist and spies in the USA after WWII that Communists and
Trotskyites tried to expose.
Talk about a nothing burger about Kushner and Russia other than his aficionado to be
Bibi's US puppet-in-law. If Trump has any Russian connections its through his first wife
Ivana Trump. According to wikipedia, Ivana Trump nee Zelníčková was born
February 20, 1949 in the Moravian town of Zlín, Czechoslovakia. From 1948 to 1990,
Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet bloc. Donald Jr speaks fluent Czech.
Now the Clintons Russian connection of selling and buying 'Merica
uranium/speechifer/foundation grab bag of goodies makes the Trump Russian investigation look
like its run by a whole buncha nut job congress critters who fell off the turnip truck conned
into playing a shell game.
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the
2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump
Resistance;
Politico
reported
that
the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the
Democratic
Party
to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the
hearings she was involved in, she
launched
the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan,
Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have
broken the law.
The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure
as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over
1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to
file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney
general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office
uncovered.
"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office
made," Harris
told
The
Hill
. "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the
facts lead us."
Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader
of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that
involved donors to her campaign.
In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin,
gave
$8,750
to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank
donated
$6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also
donated
$850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.
In 2014, the Center for American Progress
graded
California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to
decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.
Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of
the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the
opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California
criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.
In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was
hired
as
campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open
Society Foundations. In 2014,
TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization
operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which
effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report
cited
that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change
California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney
general. Lenore Anderson also
led
Vote
Safe, another Soros' funded organization.
In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson
sold
OneWest
for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the
maximum amount
to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris
spoke
at
Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and at
Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference
.
This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to
why the
Democratic
establishment
is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold
corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.
Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to
Donald
Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the
failing party.
Billionaire George Soros
held a closed door
conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and
was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
On the weekend of Trump's inauguration,
David Brock
hosted a
retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's
a--."
On July 15, Page Sixreported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met
with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.
Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended,
including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also
attended a separate luncheon
hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.
This is a well financed intelligence operation against the President. Color revolution in other
words. And MSM (including AP with disgusting articles like the one below) is the key part of the conspiracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The day-after-day drip-drip-drip of revelations over the past week about Donald Trump Jr.'s
contact with the Russian lawyer in 2016 underscores the White House's inability to shake off the Russia
story and close the book on a narrative that casts a shadow over Trump's presidency. ..."
"... The firestorm over Don Jr.'s emails has been a frustrating distraction during a stretch in
which some White House advisers believed they were finding their footing. Trump's allies also were heartened
by his trips to Europe, believing that his speech saluting national pride in Poland was a high point
of his presidency and that he appeared statesman-like during a whirlwind visit to Paris. ..."
The day-after-day drip-drip-drip of revelations over the past week about Donald Trump Jr.'s
contact with the Russian lawyer in 2016 underscores the White House's inability to shake off the
Russia story and close the book on a narrative that casts a shadow over Trump's presidency.
No matter how presidential Trump may have looked on his back-to-back trips to Europe in recent days,
the persistent questions about connections between Trump's team and Russia prevent him from savoring
a public relations victory and building momentum for his stalled legislative agenda.
"No successful crisis management model works the way they are doing things," said Lanny Davis,
who worked as special counsel to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings. "If your
mission is to control a story or try to end a story, you need to tell it early, tell it all and tell
it yourself."
Trump Jr.'s account of his Trump Tower meeting has seemingly changed on an almost daily basis.
At first, the meeting was said to be about a Russian adoption program. Then, it was to hear information
about campaign rival Hillary Clinton. Finally, Trump Jr. was forced to release emails -- mere moments
before The New York Times planned to do so -- that revealed he had told an associate that he would
"love" Russia's help in obtaining negative details about the Democratic nominee.
Even the number of people who attended the meeting has changed. On Friday, a prominent Russian-American
lobbyist told The Associated Press that he, too, had been part of the discussion.
Each revelation, no matter how small, has been seized upon by Democrats and dissected in detail
on cable news.
Davis is credited with helping to steer the Clinton White House through a series of investigations,
allowing the president to focus on his agenda while the lawyer shouldered the burden of dumping bad
news and keeping West Wing staffers in lockstep in their response. He doesn't see a central figure
doing that for Trump, and believes the president would be well-served to appoint a lawyer within
the White House, instead of using a web of external attorneys.
Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, who also attended
the June 2016 meeting, have retained attorneys separate from those hired by the president.
"They need to have one lawyer get every person in one room and figure out who knows what. No
more surprises," said Davis, who favors proactively releasing any new findings. "The facts are
coming out anyway, only question is whether they come out all at once or a little bit in a time."
The firestorm over Don Jr.'s emails has been a frustrating distraction during a stretch in
which some White House advisers believed they were finding their footing. Trump's allies also were
heartened by his trips to Europe, believing that his speech saluting national pride in Poland was
a high point of his presidency and that he appeared statesman-like during a whirlwind visit to Paris.
But behind the scenes, a group of Trump aides gathered in a cabin on the presidential aircraft
flying home from Germany last weekend to begin preparing for the initial fallout from Trump Jr.'s
2016 meeting. And then just six days later, as Air Force One was returning from France, more news
was breaking about Trump Jr.'s shifting account of the meeting, again launching a bad news cycle
and straining the credibility of the president's defense team.
John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact
that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst
Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several
accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a
free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out
several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and
crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam,
and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he
passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of
service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when
McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000
a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement,
while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or
gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs
reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored
his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay,
whose increase he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks
it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare
good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover
for fraudster Keating).
McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb
everyone and start WW III.
Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when
he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.
John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of
thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures.
How can any decent person mourn his demise?
And used this possibility again to advertize his hypothesis that Russians hacked the elections... Should not be a rule for former
CIA directors to keep mouth shut ?
Notable quotes:
"... And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. ..."
I was particularly bemused by the
comment
by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of
a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in
the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula
rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative
that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services
to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence
services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously
slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump
Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there
may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced,
and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place,
the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily
naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even
with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance
its own interests.
Any person who sites neocons like Mike Morell is very suspicious, to say the least. Pat
Buchanan is no exception, for now on...
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope. ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. ..."
"... The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. ..."
"... Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo. ..."
"... He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no." As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt
on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long
insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law. Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly. Consider the original Russiagate offense. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders. If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime? Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some
journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the
real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly
undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please
write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe
then it will sink in.
There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists.
But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.
"Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."
What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not.
The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them.
This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
@NoseytheDuke
Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt
Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
The strenuous effort of "Resistance" passengers in the Limousine-of-State to shove Donald
Trump out of the driver's seat continues into what would normally be the news-wasteland of
midsummer. Last week it was the smoking popgun of Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer
purported (by British music promoter Rob Goldstein) to be associated with the "Russian Crown
Prosecutor" (no such office in a country without a monarch).
The news caused the usual commotion among the very media mouthpieces who publish anti-Trump
allegations as a staple for their "Resistance" readerships. By the way, this blog might be
described as anti-Trump, too, in the sense that I did not vote for him and regularly inveigh
against his antics as President - but neither is Clusterfuck Nation a friend of the
Hillary-haunted Dem-Prog "Resistance," in case there's any confusion about where we stand. If
anything, we oppose the entirety of the current political regime in our nation's capital, the
matrix of rackets that is driving the aforementioned Limousine-of-State off the cliff of
economic collapse. Just sayin'.
"Resistance" law professors, such as Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, were quick to holler
"treason" over Junior's meet-up with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. Well, first of all, and not to put too fine a point on it, don't you
have to be at war with another nation to regard any kind of consort as "treason?" Last time I
checked, we were not at war with Russia - though it sure seems like persons and parties inside
the Beltway would dearly like to make that happen. You can't call it espionage either, of
course, because that would purport the giving of secret information, not the receiving of
political gossip.
Remember, the "Resistance" is not going for impeachment, but rather Section 4 of the 25
th
Amendment. That legal nicety makes for a very neat-and-clean surgical removal of
a whack-job president, without all the cumbrous evidentiary baggage and pain-in-ass due process
required by impeachment. All it requires is a consensus among a very small number of high
officials, who then send a note to the leaders in both houses of congress stating that said
whack-job president is a menace to the polity -- and out he goes, snippety-snip like a
colorectal polyp, into the hazardous waste bag of history. And you're left with a nice clean
asshole, namely Vice President Mike Pence.
Insofar as Pence appears to be a kind of booby-prize for the "Resistance," that fateful
reach for the 25
th
Amendment hasn't happened quite yet. It is hoped, I'm sure, that
the incessant piling on of new allegations about "collusion" with the Russians will get the
25thers over the finish line and into the longed-for end zone dance.
More interestingly, though, the meme that has led people to believe that any contact between
Russians and Americans is ipso facto nefarious vectors into the very beating heart of the
"Resistance" itself: the Clintons.
How come the Clintons have not been asked to explain why -- as reported on The Hill blog -- Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give speech in Russia (surely he offered them
something of value in exchange, pending the sure thing Hillary inaugural) ...
or what about the $2.35 million "contribution" that the Clinton Foundation received after
Secretary of State Hillary allowed the Russians to buy a controlling stake in the Uranium One
company, which owns 20 percent of US uranium supplies, with mines and refineries in Wyoming,
Utah, and other states, as well as assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium
producer?
Incidentally, the Clinton Foundation did not "shut down," as erroneously reported early this
year. It was only its Global Initiative program that got shuttered. The $2.35 million is
probably still rattling around in the Clinton Foundation's bank account.
Don't you kind of wonder what they did with it? I hope Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
wants to know.
Susan Rice has implicated herself (and by extension Obama) in a felony. Comey has lied
under oath and stolen government property. Lowrenta has commited obstruction of justice and
the world now knows that Natalia V was given "a special visa" by the State Department... in
June of 2016! ...in order to even be present at a meeting with Jr set up by an associate of
FusionGPS one Ron Goldstone in which, a "former Soviet counter-intelligence officer" was
present who also was allowed (even though the Alinsky press won't report it) to roam freely
around the Obama WH in a group tour...cuz... RUSSIAN SPIES! ...lol.
OBAMA White House played HOST to RUSSIAN associate of Russian Atty Natalia the same day as
the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 - according to Obama's White House log. Natalia's
translator, Samochornov was a contractor with Obama's State Dept. Per FBI insider Obama
speaks Russian.
Yeah,you missed 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming'24/7 7 days a week for 8
months now and counting,with no proof yet of any wrongdoing whatsoever nor any explanation in
concrete terms of exactly how those pesky Rooskies could possibly have 'meddled in our
elections' let alone any proof of same. No,just morning 'til night 'the russians are coming
the Russians are coming.The left has collectively lost its mind in a very public way.How any
sentient being could any longer pay them any mind is a mystery to me
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential
elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same
level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still
standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences
agencies involved?
MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former
military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned
it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.
That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water,
a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly
for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.
A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular
Far Eastern Federal University , some
70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.
Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's
chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed:
a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including
one in a Baltic swamp.
Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week,
the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation
about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.
Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian
lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and
his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.
"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's
support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and
publicist working for Emin.
While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving
as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are
often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.
Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a
hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies
and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.
When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats,
diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group
whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.
In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov,
a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump
presidential campaign.
"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one
if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential
Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner,
says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.
In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent
to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source
of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has
been in that position since 2006.
In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information
passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services
could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.
That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After
Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov
rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction
and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.
Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband
both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital,
and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.
Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company
in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.
Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of
lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's
Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.
It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to
try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.
"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you
are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann,
noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.
In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with
Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was
discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely
with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses
in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given
to the campaign.
Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was
about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."
The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.
For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome
diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.
He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied
computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.
He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill
pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.
What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually
mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a
chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.
Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on
its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.
"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in
Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former
managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm.
"He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."
Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic
son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or
posing with Robert De Niro
at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.
Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs
posted old pictures
of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.
Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs
have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the
United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential
complex "Manhattan."
In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump
met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned
Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.
The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow
as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.
Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic
cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project,
including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.
"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in
a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably
be in the construction phase today."
The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the
bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers
of power in Russia.
In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government
of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic
Union.
In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services
to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for
example, building new border posts.
By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work
to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former
Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.
In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."
Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling
the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental
trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project,
he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant
costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.
Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction
costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.
"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the
political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin.
I have to make sacrifices."
Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads
him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things
that you cannot turn down."
"... "Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. " ..."
"... "It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of
his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump. ..."
"... The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But
outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia. ..."
"... When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia
investigation is a distraction. ..."
"... "I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area. ..."
"... Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think
the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only
one in five consider it a critical security issue. ..."
"... And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University . ..."
"... More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the
campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class
Americans. ..."
"... And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
"... Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's
currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters
keep saying "give him a chance." ..."
"... "I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place." ..."
"... It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into
at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts
in the air. ..."
"... "This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many
lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area." ..."
"... These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census. ..."
"... Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian
thing that's going on. It's just politics in general." ..."
"... And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation.
..."
"... "It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in
Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really
is a swamp."" ..."
"... If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA
not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton? ..."
"... Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc? ..."
"Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. "
If they keep up their obsession with Russia – YES!
Also – relevant article, which shows that this "rural/Red State American consensus", apparently, keeps up, despite the constant
propaganda barrage from the mainstream biased media. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vox is dye in the wool liberal outlet
with handshakable agenda.
"It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members
of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC .
But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia.
When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and
the Russia investigation is a distraction.
"I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area.
Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans
think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News
poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue.
And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by
Quinnipiac University .
More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made
on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs
for middle-class Americans.
And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on
China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare,
his supporters keep saying "give him a chance."
"I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place."
It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run
into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally
wafts in the air.
"This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so
many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area."
These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census.
Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole
Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general."
And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia
investigation.
"It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool
in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp.
It really is a swamp.""
If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural
USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?
"... Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier ..."
"... it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. ..."
"... Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative. ..."
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence
conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky
law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton
democrats.
Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting
became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
"... When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them. ..."
"... Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. ..."
"... For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden. ..."
"... How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities. ..."
"... The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established. ..."
"... Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
If Vladimir Putin is half as clever as his demonizers make him out to be, he must have figured out a long time ago that, to get
inside Donald Trump's head, clinical psychologists with expertise treating male adolescents would be more useful than the Russian
hackers, real or imaginary, that Western media obsess over.
Why even bother with hackers? The little that goes on between Trump's ears is all there in his tweets.
But, of course, if the idea is to develop capabilities for waging wars in the cyber sphere, good hackers are worth their weight
in gold. If Putin isn't working on that, he is not doing his job.
These days, hackers are everywhere -- including Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. The United States has more
than its fair share too, as do the UK and other Western countries. Some work for intelligence services, directly or indirectly; many,
probably most, do not.
When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone
their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them.
Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel
introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges
by causing them to spin out of control.
Needless to say, governments are not the only players; far from it. Many, probably most, hackers are not connected, even indirectly,
with state intelligence services. Some of them may be "terrorists," according to one or another understanding of that fraught and
contested term. It is safe to assume that most of them are not. They hack for the fun of it or because they can.
There are legally binding, though sometimes ineffective, conventions that prohibit the use of a few especially heinous kinds of
weapons -- poison gas is a well-known example. Cyber weapons are not similarly proscribed. Hackers can be, and sometimes are, subject
to domestic prosecution, but, between state actors, anything goes.
In much the same vein, international law does not prohibit states from interfering in the political affairs, or elections, of
other states. Insofar as sovereignty still matters in our globalized neoliberal world, meddling of that kind plainly violates the
spirit of the law, but it is not legally proscribed.
For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore
unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden.
What is clear, however, is that, for at least the past seven decades, the United States has interfered in one way or another in
nearly every election that American government officials wanted to influence – either to prevent outcomes they opposed or to secure
results they favored.
No corner of the world has been immune, but since the demise of the Soviet Union made meddling in the political affairs of Russia
and other former Soviet republics easier, Washington has been especially intent on throwing its weight around in that part of the
world – always in ways that put Russian national interests in jeopardy.
The "digital revolution" has greatly exacerbated the problem, making meddling a lot easier than it used to be.
How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free,"
is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance
capabilities.
It is no slouch either when it comes to hacking into well-protected industrial and government servers around the world – to spy
or to meddle or, as with those centrifuges in Iran, to sabotage.
Russia can do those things too – perhaps just as well, more likely not, but certainly well enough.
It may therefore be time, now that the Cold War is back, to revive a version of the old Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, updated
for the digital age.
* * *
Thanks to digitalization and the many ways in which computers nowadays are able to communicate with each other, state and non-state
actors can meddle – or worse – more effectively than in the past.
Inasmuch as quality emerges out of quantity, as dialecticians inspired by Hegel would say, meddling has therefore become qualitatively
more problematic than it used to be.
Thus, with Cold War insanity coming back into vogue -- promoted by the entire political class, no longer just by Clinton retainers,
and by the media flacks who serve them -- meddling is taking new forms.
Some things don't change, however. As long as it keeps spending more money on "defense" than the Russians do, the United States
will retain the dominant position. Despite the best efforts of Cold Warriors to scare Americans into acquiescence, everyone now concedes
that this was how it was with nuclear weapons and missiles and much else during the original Cold War. It is how it is today too,
now that cyber weapons are added into the mix.
Nevertheless, as in the past, the War Party's spokespersons will insist that we are not spending nearly enough. Lying through
their teeth, JFK and his people concocted a "missile gap" some six decades ago. No one should be surprised, with the 2018 midterm
elections looming, when a "cyber weapons gap" opens up.
The death merchants and mad dog generals must be salivating at the prospect. Silicon Valley plus the military-industrial complex,
Eisenhower's euphemism for death merchants and military brass, now dominate the real economy. Over them all, there is Wall Street;
a far greater menace now than in Eisenhower's time. The too-big-to-fail-or-jail miscreants there must be salivating most of all.
It was public opinion that made the original Cold War possible, and so it is again. This is why the "liberal press" has been pulling
out all the stops – vilifying Russia and demonizing its President.
But there are at least two reasons why they will have a harder time getting the result they want now than their counterparts had
long ago.
For one, they don't have a President on board this time, except occasionally when all the stars are lined up right. Unlike his
post-War predecessors, from Truman on, Trump has no geopolitical goals. Instead, he wants to make "deals" that he thinks will make
him look good, but that will only make him richer.
Trump is no more anti-imperialist than Cecil Rhodes, and he doesn't have an internationalist bone in his body. But, during the
campaign, he did find it expedient to strike a kind of pre-War isolationist pose.
Since that could in principle lead him sometimes to do the right thing -- albeit for bad, even noxious reasons – there were a
few observers who were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the alternative was a continuation of the liberal
imperialism of the Obama era, who could blame them?
What they actually did, however, was give Trump way too much credit. The man has no ideological convictions to speak of. For all
practical purposes, his mind is a blank slate, susceptible to being swayed by whomever he talked to last or by the last pundit he
watched on TV.
However, where Russia is concerned, he did, and still does, seem to have sounder instincts than his rivals. For Trump, instincts
are all; and his instincts are dangerously off on almost everything. But not on this.
No doubt, his business involvements have a lot to do with it. So, very likely, does the fact that he could care less what others
think. It probably also helps that he has no ties to the foreign policy establishment or to the so-called deep state.
Whatever the reasons, Trump does seem less in thrall to the delusions that shape this latest outbreak of Russophobia in political
and media circles than other politicians at the national level. Indeed, even at this late date, he actually does seem to want to
diminish, not exacerbate, tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers.
Bravo to him for that.
The other reason why Cold Warriors today have their work cut out for them, in ways that their counterparts after the Second World
War did not, is that the justifications they are obliged to offer for treating Russia as an enemy are preposterous on their face.
Half a century ago, the Soviet Union was, in Churchill's words, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Churchill
went on to suggest that much of the mystery would dissipate if observers would think more carefully about Russia's national interests.
That insight was among the first casualties of the rush to (cold) war that Churchill himself did so much to promote.
And so, an Iron Curtain descended over the Soviet Union and its "satellites," just as he said it would -- making it possible for
the "free world's" propagandists to spin all kinds of yarns about Communist "subversion" and ill intent.
Cyber curtains are harder to construct. What could previously be kept opaque is therefore now ineluctably clear to anyone who
cares to look.
This is why all the brouhaha over Russian meddling in the 2016 election would hardly even merit discussion, but for the fact that
the stakes are so high, and because so many gullible people take it seriously.
Never mind that nothing actually came from the alleged meddling, except further confirmation of what everybody already knew: that
the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was working hard to assure that the Sanders insurgency would be defeated, and that Hillary
Clinton would be the party's nominee.
Leave aside too the glaring hypocrisy of the United States, of all countries, objecting to election meddling. Evidently, the consensus
view among mainstream politicians and in mainstream media circles too is that, in the United States, "what's sauce for the goose"
is emphatically not also "sauce for the gander."
Forget genuinely "fake news" reports as well; for example, the claim that the Russians hacked into electoral grids in Vermont
and elsewhere. There is no solid evidence for them; and, as one would expect, they disappear down the memory hole just as soon as
they serve their purpose.
Reports of Russian hacking that bear on infrastructure security, financial transactions, trade, industrial processes, and other
vital economic and military concerns would, if true, be genuinely worrisome were the recently revived Cold War to heat up.
With so many of the leading lights of the American political and media establishments working so diligently to make that happen,
this is a cause for concern. But not even the most determined warmongers have been able to come up with a plausible story about how
Russian hacking affected the election that put Donald Trump in the White House.
War Party propaganda notwithstanding, the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election is hardly gospel truth. Nevertheless,
it merits investigation.
The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official
line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know.
Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents
that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is
well established.
Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as
he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are.
For profound historical reasons, slightly different, slightly less liberal and more authoritarian, norms obtain in Russia's political
sphere than in most Western countries; and, needless to say, like everyone else everywhere, Putin and his constituents are creatures
of their time and place.
On the whole, though, the demon of the hour seems no less governed by moral, customary or legal constraints than others in similar
positions. Even in responding to events in Ukraine and Syria, he has been more scrupulously observant of international law than Barack
Obama or Donald Trump.
His word may not be as good as gold, but it is a lot better than the CIA's. Indeed, when it comes to lying, the CIA is second
to none. It has been known too to politicize intelligence when it suits its purposes or the purposes of the American government,
insofar as the two diverge. The Bush-Cheney administration's "weapons of mass destruction" is only the best-known recent example.
I would therefore venture that of all the relevant parties weighing in, the American intelligence community is the least credible.
But we are so bombarded with the party line on Russian meddling that it is hard not to succumb to the belief that there surely must
be some there there. That (ultimately irrational) consideration apart, there is every reason to remain skeptical of everybody's assessments.
For the time being and perhaps for some time to come, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.
The news that people close to Trump -- his son, his son-in-law, his campaign manager -- met with a lawyer whom they believed to
be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and who probably was, changes nothing.
According to Donald Junior's emails, they did it to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Needless to say, "opposition research" is part of electoral politics nowadays; they all do it.
The problem in this case is the involvement of someone with ties to the Kremlin. Had the story been that Trump or someone close
to him hired homegrown detectives to dig up dirt on Clinton, the news probably wouldn't even have gotten Rachel Maddow's hackles
up.
Or had the famiglia arranged a meeting for the same purpose with persons connected to some other country – Israel is
an obvious example, but not the only imaginable one – that would be fine too.
Apparently, it is the Russian connection that is toxic.
For the anti-Trump political class and their mainstream media friends, Junior's emails are the Holy Grail, the "smoking gun."
But all they show is that there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Except on the dubious theory
that the provision of information is an emolument of the kind that the Constitution proscribes, there was nothing even remotely criminal
about that meeting in Trump Tower. There was not even anything unusual; campaigns look for dirt where they can find it, and they
talk to foreign sources all the time.
Trump's flacks say that the purported smoking gun is actually no big deal.
It grieves me to say it, but they are right.
What those emails provide is evidence of the stupidity of the Trump family (no surprise there!) and close Trump associates (ditto).
To make anything more of it is, to say the least, a stretch.
***
Narratives that center on Russian meddling in the 2016 election are one thing; well-researched investigations of connections between
Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian oligarchs, mobsters, spies, and assorted sleaze balls,
on the other, are something else altogether.
Inasmuch as birds of a feather generally do flock together, there probably are quite a few contacts of that sort to uncover.
Unfortunately, though, in the fog of neoconservative, Russophobic propaganda that has settled in over our shores, these issues
have become confounded.
On the meddling in the last election question, the jury is still out on which liars to believe. Does it really matter, though?
It does to proponents and opponents of the War Party. The former are desperate for reasons to find Putin culpable of something,
anything; the latter understand the importance of not letting them have their way.
It matters too to feckless Democrats (is there any other kind?) hoping to ride anti-Trump loathing back to power in 2018. It is
all they have going for them.
But it hardly matters at all for the integrity of American democracy -- notwithstanding the self-righteous blather that currently
surrounds the issue.
The danger to democracy – what little of it we have -- is not coming from hackers, Russian or otherwise, government sponsored
or freelance. At this historical moment, it is coming mainly from the voter suppression efforts of Republican state officials and
the Trump White House.
Republican donors are culpable too. They are the ones who bankroll the governors and state legislators who are leading the charge
against (small-d) democracy.
How ironic that one of the things the Russians are supposed to have hacked into are state voting rolls. It is fatally unclear
why they would care about that, just as it is brutally obvious why Republicans would. But this doesn't phase the War Party's propagandists
one bit.
The story they are going with for now is that Putin wants Americans to lose faith in the democratic process. Why would he even
care?
During the original Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supposedly intent on world domination, there were ways of answering that
question. The answers were disingenuous, to say the least, but they could at least be made to seem plausible. Good luck with that
now!
In any case, if Putin really did want to undermine faith in American democracy, he would be a little late to the gate; and he
would be redundant. Who needs a foreign autocrat to do what Democrats and Republicans are already doing better?
Meanwhile, even with Junior's emails, Trump is still there; and unless Republicans turn on him, which, for now, seems unlikely
– or unless, more unlikely still, he decides he has had enough -- there is where he will remain.
Meanwhile too, the Democratic Party, having made itself irrelevant, is still scapegoating Russians. What a dangerous, albeit bipartisan,
spectacle – unreconstructed Clintonites working side by side with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
All this does, though, is increase the likelihood that, in the process, the world will stumble into a war that, this time around,
really will be a war to end all wars.
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
ucgsblog says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August,
but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:
"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity
is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when
we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
___
"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not
talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic
Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.
___
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.
___
"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think
(the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's
lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.
___
"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making
that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment.
That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than
22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to
Hillary Clinton.
___
"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will
defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated
enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org
Civic Action.
___
"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage
and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're
a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs
and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper,
Ohio Democratic Party chairman.
___
"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters
need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent
or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
!!!!!!-
The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"
I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite
a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is
someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.
Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special
interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs,
student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the
issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere
with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"
Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned.
Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not
sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.
"... Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire. ..."
"... The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion . ..."
"... As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts. ..."
"... every single state ..."
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Der Spiegel's instantly infamous Donald Trump cover.
I've always been a little skeptical that there'd be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign's
alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is
tantalizingly close.
The short version of the story,
revealed
by emails
the
New York Times
obtained, is that the president's eldest son was
offered "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" and "would be
very useful to your father."
More to the point, the younger Trump was
explicitly
told this was "part of Russia
and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald, Jr.'s reply? "I love it."
Trump Jr. didn't just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign
manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.
We still don't have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton
campaign emails, spread "fake news," or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the
top members of Trump's inner circle turned up to get intelligence they
knew
was part
of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.
Some in Washington are convinced they've heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and
failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting "
treason
."
Perhaps. But it's worth asking: Who's done the real harm here? Some argue it's not the
Russians after all.
"The effects of the crime are undetectable," the legendary social critic
Noam Chomsky says
of the alleged Russian meddling, "unlike the massive effects of
interference by corporate power and private wealth."
That's worth dwelling on.
Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked
with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and
wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.
That gambit's paying off far more handsomely for them -- and more destructively for the rest
of us -- than any scheme by Putin.
The evidence is hiding in plain sight.
The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and
throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on
insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by
over
$346 billion
.
As few as
12 percent of
Americans
support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's
plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts.
Meanwhile,
majorities
of Americans
in
every single
congressional district support efforts to curb local
pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in
every single state
back the Paris climate agreement.
Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the
fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled
the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies
dump toxic ash in local waterways
.
Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner
invited
billionaire military contractors
-- including Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- to advise on
policy there.
Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising
Trump on
financial
deregulation
, while student debt profiteers
set policy
at the Department of Education.
Chomsky complains that
this
sort of collusion is often "not considered a crime but
the normal workings of democracy." While Trump has taken it to new heights, it's certainly a
bipartisan problem.
If Trump's people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held
accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don't have a snowball's chance of redeeming
our democracy unless they're willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
@RobinG Well said. The legacy media and permanent ("deep") state are struggling to savage
Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.
Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case
on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this -
The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference Agree.
Meanwhile, here is a sensational article re "great America:" "CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed:
'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11″ http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
"... Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this ..."
"... Since the bipartisan War Party will not permit the guy to express his own preferred policies on the issues without threat of impeachment, why not try tweeting them? I'd appreciate at least a hint of what to look out for before it lands on my head. ..."
But one tweet truly caught my attention, even if it was at the very beginning of a
donnybrook that, with twists and turns, including claims of attempted
White House blackmail
over a
National Enquirer
article (and Trumpian rejoinders of
every kind), would monopolize the headlines and fill the yak-o-sphere of cable TV for days.
That tweet came from conservative idol Bill Kristol, editor at large for the Weekly
Standard
. It said: "Dear @realDonaldTrump, You are a pig. Sincerely, Bill Kristol."
Your side made it personal Tom. Your side made it clear they hate not just Trump but the
entire white race. I never before engaged in identity politics. It has been my habit to
condemn the D's and R's equally for ruining the country. But now that the DNC and the
corporate media have marked me for destruction my skin color, gender and sexual orientation
have become my politics. Check out CNNs ratings. Make a sober assessment of the DNCs
prospects. Look at recent polling indicating the people are not buying the constant lies
about Russia and Putin. You are reaping the whirlwind Tom.
Trump's foreign policy is indefensible. But his enemies remain my enemies. Trump has made
it clear that he will not be a punching bag. In this way he speaks for me. If your very
special prosecutor is successful in his coup attempt against our president there will be hell
to pay.
@The
Scalpel
Funny, I thought this was going to be a balanced article that included comments
about how the legacy media constantly insults Trump and spins things anyway they can to make
Trump look bad, and how all that is divisive to our nation. I thought it was going to mention
how all of this is an effort to subvert the will and desires of the Americans who elected
Trump.
LOL. I didn't really think that - even for a second. After all, this is Tom Engelhardt.
The deplorables are invisibile and inconsequential Well said. The legacy media and permanent
("deep") state are struggling to savage Trump with abssurd accusations, but our cage-fighter
is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.
Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid
case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this
Ah Just some more salty tears from those who hate Trump for talking to the people without
going through the "ministry of truth" that Democrats and Marxist have worked so hard to build
up.
I don't tweet, but if I did, I'd write something like "Dear @Kristol, If Trump is a pig,
you are the daily output of Mr. Trump. Sincerely, @DaveE"
I'd be molested (or arrested) for anti-Semitism, however.
So please cut the "we're so prosecuted" crap, Mr. Englehardt. No pun intended. The media
fully deserves to wallow in its own boiling filth for all eternity.
@El Dato
Well the information is a bit spread out and M. Stranahan should have those slides ready and
easily retrievable at a second's notice but he sure is a good speaker. Well, ya. Some people
don't like the whole Periscope media genre. Lee is building to a final report that will be
crisp and professional. He's also making a movie about George Soros (poster child of the Deep
State).
"In a way, you might say that, back in 1979, Brzezinski, the father, first ushered us into
a new global age of imperial conflict. He was, after all, significantly responsible for
ensuring that the U.S. would engage in a war in Afghanistan in order to give the Soviet Union
its own Vietnam, or what Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev would later call its "bleeding
wound."
Jews were furious about us going into Afghanistan as an anti Soviet measure because the
Soviet Union with its genocide of the goyim, gulags, takeover of E Europe, plans to take over
the rest of the world, was the supreme, supreme achievement of Jewry in the last 5,000
years.
The creation of the soviet union and its genocide of 100 million goyim by jews was nothing
to the creation of Israel, the murder of a million or so Palestinians, a couple hundred
thousand middle easterners including the American sailors on the USS Liberty and the
confiscation of Palestine.
The soviet union was Jews highest and most beloved and defended achievement. Naturally
Jews hate Brzezinski because in most of the 20th century to be anti Soviet was to be anti
semitic.
Many Jews still claim that that Polish Pope who worked with Lech Walesa to overturn the
evil empire drove the trucks that carried the gas containers to Auschwitz and hunted down
Jews to
turn over to the Germans. Stalin is still the hero because he fought Hitler.
Since the bipartisan War Party will not permit the guy to express his own preferred
policies on the issues without threat of impeachment, why not try tweeting them? I'd
appreciate at least a hint of what to look out for before it lands on my head.
Moreover,
they can't be that complex to require more than 140 characters whether he or the neocons make
them up. Plus they wouldn't be filtered and distorted by the media as everything else is. No
need to impinge on prime time TV, just tweet the State of the Union come January. For more
innovative ideas to streamline American governance, just view the movie "Idiocracy." I
understand "The Rock" wants to be our next president. Life imitating art, I suppose.
Smith left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police described as
a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and that a life insurance policy was
expiring.
Smith's death, which occurred on May 14, 10 days before the story was published, was one of
the most bizarre developments in a hard-to-follow
WSJ story
that tried (and in our estimation, failed) to implicate former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn in a sinister plot to enlist the help of some Russians to hack the 2016
election...thus 'proving' collusion.
In the story, Smith recounted to
WSJ
his
mission to find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails – the holy grail of opposition
research – which he organized late in the summer of 2016. The project began over Labor
Day weekend when Smith, who as
WSJ notes
had been "active in Republican politics," assembled a group of technology experts, lawyers and
a Russian-speaking investigator based in Europe to acquire emails the group theorized might
have been stolen from the private server Mrs. Clinton used as secretary of state. Smith
believed that, once found, at least some of the emails would prove to be relevant to her
official duties at the State Department, handing the Trump campaign an enormous PR victory and
possibly proving that she knowingly misled investigators.
Smith & Co. scoured hacker forums, ultimately finding 5 groups who claimed to have the
missing emails, 2 of which were Russian. However, Smith seemingly doubted the authenticity of
the intelligence he received and, as a result, never leaked their contents. Even more
confusing, Smith says he eventually turned over the emails to Wikileaks, but the group hasn't
published them, and denies ever having received them. Smith told the
WSJ
reporter that he'd considered Flynn an ally, but stopped short of alleging that the two worked
together on the project.
Of course, it's only deep in the story that the WSJ admits they have no idea if Flynn was
even involved with Smith...but no one reads an entire article so it's fairly irrelevant.
What role, if any, Mr. Flynn may have played in Mr. Smith's project is unclear. In an
interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith said he knew Mr. Flynn, but he never stated
that Mr. Flynn was involved.
And another irrelevant detail from the WSJ:
Mr. Smith said he worked independently and wasn't part of the Trump campaign.
Smith was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical
examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from the
Rochester, Minnesota police further details his suicide, according to the
Chicago Tribune.
Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show.
They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space
with helium."
In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY
WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a
"RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5
MILLION EXPIRING."
Mystery shrouded how and where Smith had died, but the lead reporter on the stories said on
a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that Smith
likely had died of natural causes.
Smith had been staying at the hotel – in a room typically used by patients of the Mayo
Clinic - for several days and had extended his stay at least once but was expected to check out
on the day his body was found. "Tomorrow is my last day," Smith told a hotel worker on May 13
while he worked on a computer in the business center, printing documents, according to the
police reports.
One of Smith's former employees told the
Tribune
he thought the elderly man had gone to the famed clinic to be treated for a heart
condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday she could not confirm Smith had been a
patient, citing medical privacy laws.
Smith had a history of doing opposition research against President Bill Clinton and had a
hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life.
His obituary said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and described
him as a "quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically
secure world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments
for more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm LLC from 1997 to 2014 and as the
president of Peter W. Smith & Co. from 1975 to 1997. Before that, he was a senior officer
of Field Enterprises Inc., a firm that then owned the Chicago Sun-Times and was held by the
Marshall Field family, his obituary said.
Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in
Probate Court in Lake County, Illinois. The will gives his wife his interest in their
residential property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be
placed into two trusts.
He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.
His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's
apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont,
according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla.,
and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla., Republican affairs and
with a local Methodist church. Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was
found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the
2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will
shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight."
THE SO CALLED VICTIMS OF THIS CRIME (the DNC) REFUSED TO HAD OVER THE EVIDENCE (their
hacked servers). INSTEAD THE VICTIMS DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE OF THIS ALLEDGED CRIME.
Let that sink in for a moment. The victims of the crime, destroyed the evidence of the
crime, and they spent a lot of time and money to destroy it properly.
It's actually pretty hard to do. As a technical diver, one of our biggest, and growing,
challenges is securing reliable sources of helium year in and year out. The stuff is finite
on this planet and we are running out.....absent a few nuclear blasts.
And, here's another one!
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/articl...
Eberwein was supposed to appear before the Haitian Senate's Ethics and Anti-Corruption
Commission next Tuesday - he was expected to testify that the Clinton Foundation
misappropriated Haiti earthquake donations from international donors... but clearly decided
that shooting himself in the head was a better option.
From the above article: "He was also a partner in a popular pizza restaurant in Haiti,
Muncheez, and has a pizza -- the Klaus Special -- named after him."
"Smith was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached."
Wait, WHAT???
Great, now I gotta update my avatar again. The nail gun feels very dated compared to this.
Anybody know where I can get a picture file of a "helium suicide bag"?
Also, If he really was wanting to commit suicide, and all his life he was trying to bring
the Clintons down, you'd think he would want to plan it out in a way that wanted to implicate
Hillary -- murder usually pays double for insurance and in many cases suicide can nullify the
insurance policy altogether.
Bullshit. You off yourself before your insurance expires? I don't believe suicide is
covered. Notice that these suicides are not in their place of residence. IMO, video of them
explaining it and the act or it didn't happen.
It's completely nonsensical. My $5 million dollar policy is going to end date so I am
going to put a bag over my head and kill myself to collect. ??? You would make it look like
an accident. Everyone that is over 80 years old would kill themselves if insurance paid out
on suicide. None of it makes sense yet the MSM "journalists" just write that there is nothing
to see here, move along. See Seth Rich.
What kind of life insurance policy pays out on suicide? I'd never write such a policy,
especially for a very old person who might figure he's seen enough and wants to give a nice
gift to his wife or estate.
Correct, but that is why it makes sense. He may have inserted the non-sensical reference
to his life insurance policy as a message to police that it was NOT suicide. And he may have
been forced to write the note under threat that they would kill somebody in his family if he
did not write such a note.
How many suicide notes include verbiage that tells the authorities that there was no foul
play???
I plan on killing myself because my life sucks and oh by they way, don't bother with
further investigation because I'm letting you know that there was no foul play. My plan is to
shoot myself multiple times in the head.
House Democrats announced a new strategy on Friday to force votes in an effort to highlight President Trump's possible ties to Russia.
Democrats plan to offer measures known as resolutions of inquiry that automatically trigger floor votes if they don't get action
in committee within 14 legislative days.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and several other Democratic lawmakers scheduled a press conference in the Capitol
to announce the plans on Friday morning.
The announcement included members of the House Financial Services, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign
Affairs, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
Democrats are seizing on the few tools at their disposal given their limited ability to direct congressional oversight while in
the minority.
Republicans are likely to consider the resolutions in committee to avoid forcing the entire House to vote on them.
Still, the votes are meant to put a spotlight on Trump as well as House Republicans, who Democrats say aren't being aggressive
enough with oversight of the administration.
For instance, one resolution unveiled as part of the strategy would request documents or records from Trump relating to his abrupt
firing of James Comey as FBI director in May and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' involvement in the decision.
The resolution, offered by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), will go to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
The Judiciary panel already rejected multiple previous resolutions of inquiry earlier this year that demanded documents from the
Justice Department connecting the Trump campaign with the Russian government's 2016 election interference.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) also offered a resolution of inquiry in the House Ways and Means Committee to request President Trump's
tax returns from the last decade.
The party-line votes in committee to dismiss the resolutions prevented any House floor vote.
But Democrats are determined to force more votes - even if they don't go anywhere - to pressure Republicans after revelations
this week involving President Trump's son.
Donald Trump Jr. released emails on Tuesday showing how he set up a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer claiming to have damaging
information about Hillary Clinton.
A publicist with ties to a Trump family business partner who served as an intermediary said that it was "obviously very high level
and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
The intelligence and
military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's
government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is
not engaging with Putin.
The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain
told an interviewer
that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results
in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves
to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate
Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.
Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize"
leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages.
Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an
agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our
British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.
McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for
election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims
that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not
provide hard evidence.
Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this
community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the
intelligence community, James Clapper,
lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.
Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that
Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's
elections all the time. President Obama called on
British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA
appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.
Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage
"has few parallels" according to the
CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy
interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.
Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media
group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT
is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are
neither new nor unique to Russia.
Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been
around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and
former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges
for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network
"is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."
To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and
continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited
China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with
Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to
death for adultery.
It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why
our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike
Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard,
this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't
benefit from international conflicts.
When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based
ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may
have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed
a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.
As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some
unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions
were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the
leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect
their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are
civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.
Russia also provided intelligence
that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from
bombing the Boston marathon.
Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks
conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative
contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the
rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia.
Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a
national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford.
And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded
in foreign hostilities.
Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's
condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw
from Iraq.
But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their
anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to
drive a wedge between the US and Russia.
Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed
sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include
targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal
democracy.
Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and
companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill,
S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western
Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian
Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible
uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.
Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never
advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy
promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many
self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup
to the Iraq War.
Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has
not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.
They want to outdo Senator Joseph McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957). The level of hysteria and paranoia is amazing.
The only question is whether they can run it for ten years.
Obviously the author has an agenda but it's interesting how this type of fantasy continues to be 'quacked'
Notable quotes:
"... By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony
news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect
the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts. ..."
"... One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic
cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which
high-impact states and districts in those states." ..."
WASHINGTON -- Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the
Trump campaign's digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia's sophisticated voter targeting and fake news
attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump's campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to
certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump's digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected
weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.
Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly
releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through
the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks .
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether
Russia's "fake or damaging news stories" were "coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of
any other measure with the (Trump) campaign."
By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony
news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect
the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.
Russia's operation used computer commands knowns as "bots" to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated
news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a
pedophile ring at a Washington
pizzeria .
One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic
cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which
high-impact states and districts in those states."
All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.
Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.
Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters
and whether there was "any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of
work."
Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a "person
of interest" in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances
and December meetings with Russia's ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.
Kushner's "role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow's influence operations in the elections," including his niche overseeing
the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.
Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian
lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the
lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied "If it's what you say
I love it."
That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.
Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration
between the campaign and Russia's cyber operatives.
"There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia's online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States
who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation," he said, without naming any American suspects.
Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security
Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.
Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia's role in the election meddling and
Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways
to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.
A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including
interference in other countries' internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn't believe
such an effort can happen.
As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve
to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired
with the Russians.
Among other things, congressional investigators are looking into whether Russian operatives, who successfully penetrated
voting registration systems in Illinois, Arizona and possibly other states, shared any of that data with the Trump campaign,
according to a report in Time.
"I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner
told Pod Save America recently. "Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren't even
aware (of) really raises some questions How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?"
The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan,
"where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play," Warner said.
"... The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters. ..."
"... One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur. ..."
The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy
hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters.
One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey
the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur.
Say hi to Rob Goldstone. This will be over in a few days, and as before, the dummies who are chasing this idea, will just look
stupider than they already do.
Save this video and watch it over your Wheaties tomorrow morning. Molyneux nails it.
Karl Rove said in the middle of year 2000 to VIP lawyers in Washington, that they no more would be occupied with analises of
facts but forward with analising the reality Washington defined.
Due to the unipolar position Washington would from early year 2000 define the reality the world should face and spend (waste)
their time on analising.
Molyneux is good to hear and see on many subjects, but this subect is in my opinion irrelevant, irrelevant as the Russia hacking
US election is, the Assad Chemical attack, the HitlerPutin, the Crimea annexion hoax, the NK threat, man made clima change hoax,
etc.
People with true intelligent capabilities should of course not spend their time on finding evidences on and document all Washington´s
lies and defined realities.
Both Molyneux, RI and many others must have the right to dismiss obvious lies and propagandas, and go straight to the subject,
that anybody with power that lie to us and the public should and must be removed and replaced.
Otherwise we are using our powers, intelligence and energy in an un-constructive way and we never learn, because we jump on
the joke and hot air train again again.
"... Who gave the NYT the private emails of Donald Trump junior? Would that not be a criminal offense? ..."
"... The guy, who sent Trump Jr. the emails is called Rob Goldstone and works in the music industry. Michael Goldstone, who is in that industry as well is partner of Peter Mensch, the husband of Louise Mensch, Trump and Russia hater. I wonder, if the Goldstones are related? ..."
"... It's become clear to me that the entire "Russiagate Scandal" is an elaborate operation to cover up HRC's crimes committed through her foundation and as Secretary of State--that's where a very good case for treason lies, massive tax fraud and illegal uses of a non-profit org that isn't even properly chartered in all 50 states and in numerous other nations, amid other felonious behavior. Note that since the Podesta/DNC email leak that essentially zero members of the Propaganda System have examined the mass of evidence of wrongdoing it contains. Instead, we were immediately treated to "Russiagate," and Sanders played right along with HRC et al. ..."
"... The Clintons were recruited by the Deep State and became some of its most effective members in advancing its cause--the primary Foreign and Domestic policy drive of the Outlaw US Empire was formulated and published during Clinton's second term: Joint Vision 2010 , wherein the goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the entire planet and its people--GHW Bush's "New World Order"--was put into practice. The illegal war against Serbia was its first test, which was launched after supporting Chechen terrorists to tie down Russia so it would be unable to help. Also, the prepping of TWTC for demolition by terrorists was done simultaneously. As with the OKC bombing, the motive for 911 was the destruction of evidence implicating numerous Deep State members and overall Deep State activity that would finally tear the veil from years of multi-billion dollar graft and corruption. ..."
"... So, defending the Clintons differs little from defending the Deep State since they've operated as a team for decades, which is why we've seen "Russiagate" continue on without any credible evidence to justify its existence. And, we'll continue to be plagued by it no matter how much pushback is done because of what its designed to protect. Comey did nothing with all the evidence he had because he's part of the Deep State team, which is why he hasn't been arrested for his own law breaking, http://theduran.com/comey-stole-memos-leaked-classified-information/ And the primary reason why Trump's Justice Dept. hasn't indicted either is because its head--and many others within Trump's admin.--are GOBS--Good Old Boys--that are also part of or associated with the Deep State network. ..."
"... Indeed, what we see is another deep-state leak to punish Trump and Russia, the writing of Goldstone is also just what the anti-Trump and Russia crowd needed at this time. All boils down to who this russian woman is I guess. ..."
"... CIA-Gate - thoughts? Did MI-6 and CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
"... Follow-up ... 'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow ..."
"... Seems to me Netanyahu is a revengeful guy and Obama interfered in the last Israeli election for the Knesset. The Democrats pushed through the Iran nuclear deal and HRC was the darling of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Egypt's Morsi and Erdogan of Turkey. The Saudi King was not amused and intelligence cooperation with Israel's Mossad has intensified. Thinking support for Al Nusra near the Golan Heights in the fight to overthrow Assad in Damascus. Useful "intelligence" from Unit 8200 in Ghouta gas attack, the so-called intercepts of the SAA generals. ..."
"... Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways. Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Paul Singer, Rubio Donor ..."
"... Cristina Lalia provides plenty of grounds for this choice by citing HRC/DNC collusion with Ukrainian officials in an attempt to get dirt on Trump, which is now conveniently forgotten, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47414.htm ..."
"... Tyler Durden's been on the trail of the massive cover-up known as "Russiagate" since his Zerohedge article illuminating the investigation done by Charles Ortel. His most recent item deals with Comey's lawbreaking and is most damning, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47405.htm ..."
"... Here's the link to Durden's piece on the Clinton Foundation, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown and the link to the website Ortel made to document his investigation, http://charlesortel.com/ ..."
"... In my disappeared comment, I provided a rationale for Russiagate's purpose as a cover up for HRC & DNC crimes and Sander's willingness to go along. Alas, I should have copied before hitting post. I also provided the rationale for why Russiagate won't go away despite the lack of evidence--It's ultimate purpose is to cover up Deep State crimes and its primary purpose since GHW Bush declared the New World Order, which was left for the Clintons to organize. Also note how the running of Russiagate is bipartisan--where are the senate investigations into HRC, DNC, Podesta, Comey, Lynch, and who knows how many others: Why don't Republicans smell the blood and go for the kill of so many allegedly hated opponents? ..."
"... To me, "colluded with Russia" implies collusion with the Russian government, or state. At any rate, this is the gravamen of the current US/Western pandemic of acute Russophobia. Even the complementary, or corollary, Putinphobia isn't directed towards Putin as a person -- Putin is only the hysterics' "Great Satan" because he personifies the Russian state/government. As far as I can see, the allegations concerning both campaigns involve individual actors, some of whom happen to be Russian. ..."
"... Cannot set aside the Clinton Foundation, CGI, bankers'speeches and especially Bill w. Lynch on the tarmac and the family mail server. No matter how much the bottom-feeding deep swamp state nips at Trump's ankles, so far he's still on top. ..."
"... This operation -- and it sounds like an operation -- was obviously a trap of sorts. "There is no follow up". Yes, the genius son figured out. After changing his schedule on demand (that was a test to see how desperate he is for it) and finally meeting the person he believed was a "Russian government attorney" bring info from "Crown prosecuter", Mr. Peter Principle realizes that he was played. I bet he's sweating bullets for a while now. ..."
"... On a side note, isn't amazing that such stupid incompetents (such as D Jr.) get to enjoy the fat of the land while the rest of us work at the plantation. What a thoughtless idiot. You're fired, Donnie. ..."
"... Yes, indeed! Who gave the NY Times, Donnie Jr's emails? Will Papa Donnie investigate? ..."
"... "New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into question." ..."
"... The big takeaway from all the Russiagate garbage - there was collusion between heads of intel and Obama admin to install Clinton as president, and now the same collusion to take down Trump. ..."
"... It appears the Deep State didn't trust Trump to keep its many secrets covering its illegalities secret. It also seems the Republicans want to keep them secret too since we don't see any sign of any investigation into Clinton Foundation, Comey's law breaking, or anything else of importance. ..."
"... Special And Off Limits - No Special Prosecutor for Clinton. Russia hacking DNC was determined by Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike has an odor. The DNC refused the FBI to examine the claim of Russia hacking their servers. Why? ..."
"... ...There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails...." notice that it is no longer "alleged Russian hacking", BUT "Russian government computer hacking" ..."
"... I have seen no hard evidence of that at all. Go believe what you want, the Ruling Class has decided on their stupid ignorant narrative which will/may drive us to nuclear war. ..."
"... "Both Clinton and Trump are crooks, but in different kinds of ways." ..."
"... Yep! Both these morons represent what the U$A has become. An empire who's lust for $ & power is a threat to the entire globe. ..."
"... A genuine scandal that cries for a Special Prosecutor. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar¨> Kushner tried to shakedown the Qataris. ..."
"... The PBS Newshour led off with the dim-witted Donnie,jr meeting with a sleazy Russian lawyer, but never even mentioned the more substantive Kushner story...I wonder why. ..."
"... With a bit more thought, it seems plausible that this Russian lawyer and her promoter friends simply staged a shakedown -- evidence of the meeting, i.e. emails to Jr, held as extortion collateral. Guessing the timing was pretty close to G20 to punish Trump for being nice to Vlad, if you want to read more into it for a possible link to DNC, but the thing is coming out of left field where it otherwise makes little sense. Pretty worn-out ruse, get a shot of the mark with a hooker, threaten to reveal, etc. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Pence building support to step in when Trumpy goes down. Pence is starting to look like a backstabbing little shit, imo. ..."
"... During the meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 get-together, the concept of a joint cyber-security program was raised. My understanding is that Trump seemed OK with that, but the US establishment closed it down. Anything to do with Lavrov's comment that the cyber-security issue is intimately tied in with pornography and pedophilia? ..."
"... The email from from Rob Goldstone was so over the top in its description of the "crown prosecutor of Russia" and his government's willingness to help the Trump campaign that one could reasonably assume it was a set-up. But by whom? Was Goldstone an accomplice of the deep state? Read the fake news and find out that he's an old Trump hanger-on who's done business with the family on occasion and has operated with Russian nationals on a regular basis and currently is an agent for a Russian "aspiring" pop star. Was he turned by evil forces? What about femme fatale lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya? Another deep state operative? Or was she just acting on behalf of Russian business people looking for relief from the Magnitsky Act? What did she have to offer and where did she get it? From Hillary or the DNC? Does that even make sense? How far down the fucking rabbit hole is one prepared to go? Better get the Saker or Pepe Escobar to straighten this out. ..."
"... It already has. The Brit was a snake oil salesman, the lawyer was a mid-level commercial lawyer who was involved with Fusion GPS (see Steele Report) had nothing to show that the Russian government was interfering against Clinton, Donald Jr. is a naive moron who needs to have a sceptic like the Amazing Randi as his minder and the Clintonists demonstrate yet again that they are a bunch of deranged moronic losers who will continue losing, which we knew already anyway. So move along no, there really is nothing to see. ..."
A Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to
pay money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt
about Donald Trump. They deliver some dirty fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far
and wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.
Case 2:
Some lobbyist for Russian business interests contacts the Trump campaign with a promise to
deliver some dirt on Hillary Clinton. She meets campaign officials but no dirt on Clinton is
offered. Instead the lobbyist uses the time to lobby for the business' cause. There is no
follow up.
Question:
Which of the two cases stinks of "collusion with the Russians"?
Posted by b on July 11, 2017 at 01:31 PM |
Permalink
This new leak on Trump Jr. actually sounds weird and will no doubt give the anti-Trump/Russia
crowd lots of credit. This is what they have been waiting for.
I'm kind of assuming there's no actual proof of the claim that the Steele report was
commissioned by DNC or HRC but i'd like to read what the claim is.
Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a
long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to
uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democratic ally Planned
Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion
group.
Moreover, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary
Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump
around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000
to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election
Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign.
After being told that The Times was about to publish the content of the emails, instead of
responding to a request for comment, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out images of them himself on
Tuesday.
Who gave the NYT the private emails of Donald Trump junior?
Would that not be a criminal offense?
The guy, who sent Trump Jr. the emails is called Rob Goldstone and works in the music
industry. Michael Goldstone, who is in that industry as well is partner of Peter Mensch, the
husband of Louise Mensch, Trump and Russia hater. I wonder, if the Goldstones are related?
It's become clear to me that the entire "Russiagate Scandal" is an elaborate operation to
cover up HRC's crimes committed through her foundation and as Secretary of State--that's
where a very good case for treason lies, massive tax fraud and illegal uses of a non-profit
org that isn't even properly chartered in all 50 states and in numerous other nations, amid
other felonious behavior. Note that since the Podesta/DNC email leak that essentially zero
members of the Propaganda System have examined the mass of evidence of wrongdoing it
contains. Instead, we were immediately treated to "Russiagate," and Sanders played right
along with HRC et al.
The Clintons were recruited by the Deep State and became some of its most effective
members in advancing its cause--the primary Foreign and Domestic policy drive of the Outlaw
US Empire was formulated and published during Clinton's second term:
Joint Vision 2010
, wherein the goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the entire planet and its
people--GHW Bush's "New World Order"--was put into practice. The illegal war against Serbia
was its first test, which was launched after supporting Chechen terrorists to tie down Russia
so it would be unable to help. Also, the prepping of TWTC for demolition by terrorists was
done simultaneously. As with the OKC bombing, the motive for 911 was the destruction of
evidence implicating numerous Deep State members and overall Deep State activity that would
finally tear the veil from years of multi-billion dollar graft and corruption.
So, defending the Clintons differs little from defending the Deep State since they've
operated as a team for decades, which is why we've seen "Russiagate" continue on without any
credible evidence to justify its existence. And, we'll continue to be plagued by it no matter
how much pushback is done because of what its designed to protect. Comey did nothing with all
the evidence he had because he's part of the Deep State team, which is why he hasn't been
arrested for his own law breaking,
http://theduran.com/comey-stole-memos-leaked-classified-information/
And the primary reason why Trump's Justice Dept. hasn't indicted either is because its
head--and many others within Trump's admin.--are GOBS--Good Old Boys--that are also part of
or associated with the Deep State network.
So, to answer b's question, Case One is the winner by miles.
"Which of the two cases stinks of 'collusion with the Russians'"?
If you insist on playing...the one where nobody is being paid is the one more like
collusion, cooperation, conspiracy, the one where two actors have the same goals. The one
where somebody gets paid is just ordinary dirty business. A payoff is not an agenda.
As to the larger nonsense about Trump, he lost the election, so obviously the Russians
didn't steal it. That Electoral College BS did it. All the Russian allegations are moot, they
didn't make a difference.
Indeed, what we see is another deep-state leak to punish Trump and Russia,
the writing of Goldstone is also just what the anti-Trump and Russia crowd needed at this
time. All boils down to who this russian woman is I guess.
The art of "opposition research" is a bit mysterious. "Everybody does it", at least in USA,
but the results differ. The "Russian collusion" angle was a disastrous mistake of Hillary
camp because it turned out to be a ho-hum story, while they could nail Trump for a ton of
infractions that would be (a) easy to explain (b) have actual victims to be displayed in
campaign spots.
And of course it was a disastrous mistake of DNC not to twist hands of Hillary to resign.
Bernie had very nice "message discipline" and hardly any "baggage" and Hillary was tainted by
e-mail problems and she did not have Trumpian flair to dismiss it. Mental experiments: get 10
refurbished car wrecks and put them on two lots. Make Trump sell on one of them, and Hillary
on the other. Which lot will get empty sooner? (Devil's thought: Bernie's used car lot, what
would happen there?)
I am waiting for new developments linking NSA/GCHQ intelligence collusion with Unit 8200 in
the so-called "RussiaGate"
Seems to me Netanyahu is a revengeful guy and Obama interfered in the last Israeli
election for the Knesset. The Democrats pushed through the Iran nuclear deal and HRC was the
darling of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Egypt's Morsi and Erdogan of Turkey. The Saudi King
was not amused and intelligence cooperation with Israel's Mossad has intensified. Thinking
support for Al Nusra near the Golan Heights in the fight to overthrow Assad in Damascus.
Useful "intelligence" from Unit 8200 in Ghouta gas attack, the so-called intercepts of the
SAA generals.
The mobsters from Russia, Ukraine and Moldova are welcome guests in London and Tel Aviv
... see Katsyv, Martash Investment and money laundering thru Hapoalim Bank.
NATO and Soros Crossed Russia's Red
Line in Europe
Since my first comment went into cyberspace and seems to have disappeared, I'll write another
in similar vein.
First, to answer b's query: #1.
Cristina Lalia provides plenty of grounds for this choice
by citing HRC/DNC collusion with Ukrainian officials in an attempt to get dirt on Trump,
which is now conveniently forgotten,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47414.htm
Tyler Durden's been on the trail of the massive cover-up known as "Russiagate" since his
Zerohedge article illuminating the investigation done by Charles Ortel. His most recent item
deals with Comey's lawbreaking and is most damning,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47405.htm
In my disappeared comment, I provided a rationale for Russiagate's purpose as a cover up
for HRC & DNC crimes and Sander's willingness to go along. Alas, I should have copied
before hitting post. I also provided the rationale for why Russiagate won't go away despite
the lack of evidence--It's ultimate purpose is to cover up Deep State crimes and its primary
purpose since GHW Bush declared the New World Order, which was left for the Clintons to
organize. Also note how the running of Russiagate is bipartisan--where are the senate
investigations into HRC, DNC, Podesta, Comey, Lynch, and who knows how many others: Why don't
Republicans smell the blood and go for the kill of so many allegedly hated opponents?
Well, my comment serves the purpose but isn't as juicy as the first. Yes, I copied this
one before clicking post.
To me, "colluded with Russia" implies collusion with the Russian government, or state. At
any rate, this is the gravamen of the current US/Western pandemic of acute Russophobia. Even the complementary, or corollary, Putinphobia isn't directed towards Putin as a
person -- Putin is only the hysterics' "Great Satan" because he personifies the Russian
state/government. As far as I can see, the allegations concerning both campaigns involve individual actors,
some of whom happen to be Russian.
Even the ambiguous claims that Steele solicited and bribed
"(former?) Russian
intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt about Donald Trump"
supports this view.
Sure, those Russian spooks and Kremlin insiders
could
have been acting in an
official capacity, i.e. on behalf of the Russian government. But they might simply be corrupt,
venal apparatchiks willing to make some money doing a private deal with Steele, et al. So, I don't think either sketchy scenario establishes true collusion with Russia.
All
that
said, of the two, Case 1 stinks to high heaven.
The parties described in Case 2 aren't angels, of course. If accurate, the Russian
lobbyist's "tease", or "bait and switch" is deplorable-- at least Team Trump would think so,
since she wasted their time.
But it's not exactly a scandal that any campaign would welcome negative information
("dirt") about an opponent. Only naïve or idealistic True Believers in "good government"
would be outraged at such routine, mundane skulduggery.
The Case 1 scenario is a different, highly-scented kettle of fish: here, the campaign is
orchestrating dirty tricks to injure its opponent.
Conclusion: strictly speaking, no evidence of "true collusion with Russia"-- but Case 1
stinks for the reasons given.
Cannot set aside the Clinton Foundation, CGI, bankers'speeches and especially Bill w. Lynch
on the tarmac and the family mail server. No matter how much the bottom-feeding deep swamp
state nips at Trump's ankles, so far he's still on top.
Trump Jr. willing to testify, wonder how much leakage Congress can take if we open the
foreign superPAC donation can of worms.
Piotr @ 9 -- Hillary gets 1000 idiots in black headscarves with sticks to bash the cars to
pieces and hide them under a pile of Starbucks cups.
Some lobbyist for Russian business interests contacts the Trump campaign with a promise
to deliver some dirt on Hillary Clinton. She meets campaign officials but no dirt on
Clinton is offered. Instead the lobbyist uses the time to lobby for the business' cause.
There is no follow up.
This undermines your credibility, b.
This operation -- and it sounds like an operation -- was obviously a trap of sorts. "There is no follow up". Yes, the genius son figured out. After changing his schedule on demand (that was a test to
see how desperate he is for it) and finally meeting the person he believed was a "Russian
government attorney" bring info from "Crown prosecuter", Mr. Peter Principle realizes that he
was played. I bet he's sweating bullets for a while now.
On a side note, isn't amazing that such stupid incompetents (such as D Jr.) get to enjoy
the fat of the land while the rest of us work at the plantation. What a thoughtless idiot.
You're fired, Donnie.
"New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent
researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the
Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a
computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a
USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the
Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into
question."
I'm going with option 3 Jack, the biggest collusion in the US elections was AIPAC. and it
will continue to be so. Astounding people have no issue with dual citizens of Israel lobbying
and actually writing bills and laws for AmeriKa!
The big takeaway from all the Russiagate garbage - there was collusion between heads of intel
and Obama admin to install Clinton as president, and now the same collusion to take down
Trump.
Yes, you illuminate one of several elephants in the room. Some of us can actually see them
all, but apparently very few journalists or police investigators can.
Peter AU @25--
It appears the Deep State didn't trust Trump to keep its many secrets covering its
illegalities secret. It also seems the Republicans want to keep them secret too since we
don't see any sign of any investigation into Clinton Foundation, Comey's law breaking, or
anything else of importance.
Special And Off Limits - No Special Prosecutor for Clinton. Russia hacking DNC was
determined by Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike has an odor. The DNC refused the FBI to examine the claim of Russia hacking
their servers. Why?
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of
inaccuracies in one of its key reports used to bolster the claim that operatives of the
Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the DNC hired
CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the
first time.
"Credibility of Cyber Firm that Claimed Russia Hacked the DNC Comes Under Serious
Question"
"What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian
Billionaire and Google"
"Now here are the latest developments courtesy of Voice of America:"[.]
...There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to
Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic
National Committee emails...." notice that it is no longer "alleged Russian hacking", BUT "Russian government computer
hacking"
I have seen no hard evidence of that at all. Go believe what you want, the Ruling Class
has decided on their stupid ignorant narrative which will/may drive us to nuclear war.
This whole story and anything related now bores the sh*t out of me, and I will never again
post anything remotely related to it
Christopher Steele says in a court filing that his accusations against the president
and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made
public, much less posted in full on a website for the world"
... more >
While the liberal news media hunts for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the public
record shows that Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the
presidential election against Donald Trump and attack his administration.
The disinformation came in the form of a Russian-fed dossier written by former British
intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It contains a series of unverified criminal charges
against Mr. Trump's campaign aides, such as coordinating Moscow's hacking of Democratic
Party computers.
Some Democrats have widely circulated the discredited information. Mr. Steele was paid
by the Democrat-funded opposition research firm Fusion GPS with money from a Hillary
Clinton backer. Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists. The
information fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it in part to investigate Mr.
Trump's campaign aides.
The same Democrats who have condemned Russia's election interference via plying fake news
and hacking email servers have quoted freely from the Steele anti-Trump memos derived from
creatures of the Kremlin.
In other words, there is public evidence of significant, indirect collusion between
Democrats and Russian disinformation, a Trump supporter said.
.
"If anyone colluded with the Russians, it was the Democrats," said a former Trump
campaign adviser who asked not to be identified because of the pending investigations.
"After all, they've routinely shopped around false claims from the debunked Steele dossier,
which listed sources including senior Kremlin officials.
If anyone should be investigated in Washington, it ought to be Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell,
Mark Warner and their staffers."
That is a reference to Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Sen. Mark R. Warner, Virginia Democrat and vice
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and Rep. Eric Swalwell, a
California, Democrat on the House intelligence panel.[.]
who needs a soap opera when you have it all on a regular thanks the usa... another friggin'
usa scandal on the front pages, over and over and over... i am so tired of these wacky usa
based stories and will happy when they are over..
for those who love reading these kinds of things
emptywheel
has a post on this.. i stopped reading her mostly as it was 24/7 as the stomach ( usa ) turns
24/7...
Re: steven t johnson | Jul 11, 2017 2:46:31 PM | 6 you write:
"As to the larger nonsense about Trump, he lost the election, so obviously the Russians
didn't steal it. That Electoral College BS did it."
Sorry, Trump actually won the election according to the US Constitution. You are free to
complain about the electoral system, but that doesn't negate the election results, regardless
of you opinions.
The PBS Newshour led off with the dim-witted Donnie,jr meeting with a sleazy Russian
lawyer, but never even mentioned the more substantive Kushner story...I wonder why.
With a bit more thought, it seems plausible that this Russian lawyer and her promoter friends
simply staged a shakedown -- evidence of the meeting, i.e. emails to Jr, held as extortion
collateral. Guessing the timing was pretty close to G20 to punish Trump for being nice to Vlad, if you want to read more into it for a possible link to DNC, but the thing is coming
out of left field where it otherwise makes little sense. Pretty worn-out ruse, get a shot of
the mark with a hooker, threaten to reveal, etc.
Meanwhile, Pence building support to step in when Trumpy goes down. Pence is starting to
look like a backstabbing little shit, imo.
Leaving aside Shrillary's inherently amoral nature, and focusing solely on Trump Jr's story,
I've noticed two interesting aspects.
Trump Jr's story is too inconveniently innocent and plausible and The Swamp is
faux-angrily determined to undermine it no matter how ridiculous the convoluted rhetoric has
to become.
Zio-Jazeera and BBC are being VERY CAREFUL to ensure that the pro and anti Trump camps
deliver their respective messages with minimal interruption. Imo, they're both letting the
Public decide who is, and who isn't telling porkies.
I am giddy with delight at the evil bastards in the U.S. deep state tearing themselves apart.
The psychopaths won't be defeated by any means and the U.S. public will just be mildly
confused by what's going on and continue to elect new ones. Obviously nobody is going to jail
no matter how bad this gets - that just never happens (except for 'little people'). But it's
somehow satisfying for now to watch the Washington elite punch themselves in the face and
bleed for a while.
I know - very ephemeral. We'll be at war soon enough. It's the proven 'standard
distraction' in political meltdowns like this and/or during financial collapse. Both are in
play now. [sigh...]
"I know - very ephemeral. We'll be at war soon enough. It's the proven 'standard
distraction' in political meltdowns like this and/or during financial collapse. Both are in
play now. [sigh...] "
Unfortunately yes, thats the only rational result it seems, these liberal, deep state, msm
are simply psychopaths with their ongoing hate. What else are they demanding? Disgusting
people..
So watch out for more attacks on Syria or perhaps North Korea.
And that Russia/US making up,.. wont happen.
During the meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 get-together, the concept of a joint
cyber-security program was raised. My understanding is that Trump seemed OK with that, but
the US establishment closed it down. Anything to do with Lavrov's comment that the
cyber-security issue is intimately tied in with pornography and pedophilia?
Yunno, any purported collusion with the Russian government (as opposed to private entities
from a foreign nation) is the least of the problems I have with Trump.
Most of all, my problems lie with the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest between
his office and his business dealings. The Clinton Foundation is a purely charitable
operation, the Trump Foundation is used as a means of recycling money to and from Trump
businesses.
And people made jokes and memes about his "covfefe" tweet, but that simply demonstrates to
me that a major channel of communication controlled by the executive branch is uttering
nonsense and there is nobody to check or regulate it.
That indicates the extent to which Trump is not qualified, in terms of background,
experience or character, for the office of the Presidency.
After a half page of comments I have yet to see one that might even consider that there might
be culpability on the part of the Trumps or Russian officialdom. Even the most thoughtful of
this board's contributors won't go there. I guess the latest revelations are just more fake
news but oddly enough nobody in DC is calling it that.
The email from from Rob Goldstone was so over the top in its description of the "crown
prosecutor of Russia" and his government's willingness to help the Trump campaign that one
could reasonably assume it was a set-up. But by whom? Was Goldstone an accomplice of the deep
state? Read the fake news and find out that he's an old Trump hanger-on who's done business
with the family on occasion and has operated with Russian nationals on a regular basis and
currently is an agent for a Russian "aspiring" pop star. Was he turned by evil forces? What
about femme fatale lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya? Another deep state operative? Or was she
just acting on behalf of Russian business people looking for relief from the Magnitsky Act?
What did she have to offer and where did she get it? From Hillary or the DNC? Does that even
make sense? How far down the fucking rabbit hole is one prepared to go? Better get the Saker
or Pepe Escobar to straighten this out.
The unalterable fact is that Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort were all over the opportunity
for Russian help like flies on shit. Whether or not there was any follow-up will be
determined in due course by special counselor Mueller as he hoovers up all the email traffic
and phone records surrounding this matter.
To all those who express exasperation that a year of investigation has uncovered exactly
nothing I say bear in mind that none of the principals have yet to testify before Mueller or
the Senate Intelligence Committee. Kushner keeps revising his list of meetings with Russian
nationals as more information emerges. His security clearance may come under review. The rest
of the crew are lawyered up to the nuts and waiting for their turn in the barrel. I drool at
the prospect of Al Franken taking these clowns apart. I know it's anathema for posters to
face the possibility that their idols might somehow be guilty of even a smidgen of what has
been alleged but that says more about them than what's emerging day by day.
>>>>Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 12, 2017 2:02:58 AM | 39
If "nothing-burger" wasn't already in the Official Lexicon, it will be when this episode
approaches its conclusion.
It already has. The Brit was a snake oil salesman, the lawyer was a mid-level commercial
lawyer who was involved with Fusion GPS (see Steele Report) had nothing to show that the
Russian government was interfering against Clinton, Donald Jr. is a naive moron who needs to
have a sceptic like the Amazing Randi as his minder and the Clintonists demonstrate yet again
that they are a bunch of deranged moronic losers who will continue losing, which we knew
already anyway. So move along no, there really is nothing to see.
Flashback:
Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016
Election
July 11, 2017 "
Information Clearing House
" - The fake news
media has their knives drawn over Donald Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer during
the presidential campaign. Never Trumper and GOP Senator,
Susan Collins
even called on the Senate Intelligence panel to interview Don Jr.
These media sycophants are however, silent over Hillary Clinton's antics during the
presidential election which makes Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting pale in comparison.
Hillary Clinton's aides met with Ukrainian government officials and journalists specifically
to dig up dirt on team Trump. The information gathered was then sent to the DNC and Hillary's
camp.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who
was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul
Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The
Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and
advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the
east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged
hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
They actually tried to downplay their efforts after Trump won the election.
Certainly it was a shock to everyone working in opposition to Trump:
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump
or Manafort, explaining "we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but
our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the
campaign affairs." Shulyar said her work with Chalupa "didn't involve the campaign," and she
specifically stressed that "We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging
information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort."
Evidence to the contrary
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under
Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort
and Russia. "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I
should contact Chalupa," recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev.
"They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with
Alexandra Chalupa," he said, adding "Oksana was keeping it all quiet," but "the embassy
worked very closely with" Chalupa.
Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.
https://t.co/zxiOU3cxN6
Where is the call for Hillary Clinton and her aides to be interviewed by the Senate
Intelligence panel? Why isn't the media calling for an investigation into the Democrats' and
Hillary Clinton's many crimes committed during the 2016 presidential election?
The Democrats unmasked Trump and his private associates to spy on his campaign. Loretta
Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac and a few days later, Comey exonerated Hillary
Clinton.
Loretta Lynch reportedly interfered in the election when she ordered the FBI to refer to the
Hillary email investigation as a 'matter'.
Comey also gave classified memos to a friend to leak to the press.
But Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer for 20 minutes and now some are calling it
'borderline treason'. Unbelievable.
Here is Don Jr.'s
statement
regarding his 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer who wanted to discuss the
Magnitsky Act. According to the left, this is worth investigating. The real story underneath
this is who put this lawyer up to this? Stay tuned because the Democrats will soon be
regretting their witch hunt as the tables slowly begin to turn on them.
MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with
NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest
in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya
said.
When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:
"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear
the thought that they wanted."
Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory
meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.
On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing
untoward in the meeting had occurred.
"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to
listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.
The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya
had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.
But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.
This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection
with William F. Browder
).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission.
Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''
"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You
can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but
McKinley was wary.
"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted
to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he
wanted a promise in writing.
McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.
"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the
place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''
Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful
bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the
room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''
McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican
Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their
war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''
This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving
suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign
officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met
with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official
documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father."
For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager
at the time, Paul Manafort.
This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil
the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters
are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done
was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.
Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting
out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken.
The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean
Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.
Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What
to think? Whom to believe?
Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to
come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?
That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed
to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''
Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence
emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness,
and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant
avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.
The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young
man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned
on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along
with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling
in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.
But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump
sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the
two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the
president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.
Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that
this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration
in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.
But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict
his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy
his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the
timing in all this.
Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation
to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.
And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern
bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of
conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American
people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.
That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave
nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly
normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with
someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself
know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell
of a blunder.
... ... ...
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative.
His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due
out from Simon & Schuster in November.
A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms
Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for
In a statement, Mark Corallo added: "Specifically, we have learned that the person who
sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports,
was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which
commissioned the phony Steele dossier."
Fusion GPS, which is based in Washington DC and was established by former Wall Street
Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, found itself in the spotlight earlier this
year after it emerged it was behind an "oppo research" dossier containing unproven and often
salacious allegations about Mr Trump.
The company had originally been hired by Republican rivals of Mr Trump during the primary
campaign. After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic
financial supporters of Ms Clinton. In the summer of 2016, GPS hired former British intelligence
agent, Christopher Steele, to help their work .
####
Plenty more smoke at the link. What is is with the Americans needing to have their dick
in every pie? Once a dick is burnt, doesn't one learn a lesson? Apparently not.
That Fusion GPS seems to be playing both sides smells far more of arms length US intel operations,
though natural greed certainly cannot be ruled out. I'm looking forward to this being dissected
and Fusion GPS having its balls roasted publicly.
Everyone can play The Link Game because no actual evidence is required to be produced.
Genius!
The Donald is in a unique position; he is not a member of the political class, and likely this
term, if he makes it, will be his last fling at politics, to mutual satisfaction – I doubt it's
as much of a gas as he thought it would be. He therefore owes nobody anything, and doesn't need
anybody's support after he rides into the sunset; that's what independently wealthy means.
He can therefore nail anyone's hide to the barn door without fear that it will damage his political
aspirations or legacy.
"... The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations. ..."
The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the
largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating
throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime
change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been
building
its empire since the Civil War era
, but it has been in the post-World War II period that
it has perfected regime change operations.
Have the people of the United States been the victims of regime change operations at home?
Have the wealthiest and the security state created a government that serves them, rather than
the people? To answer these questions, we begin by examining how regime change works and then
look at whether those ingredients are being used domestically.
Color Revolutions and Regime Change Operations
Almost from the start, the CIA's role has been more than intelligence gathering. It has been
a key player in putting in place governments friendly to the United States and conducting other
operations, e.g. the CIA is currently involved in drone strikes.
One of the first regime change operations of the CIA was Operation Ajax conducted in Iran,
and led by Kermit Roosevelt , the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was president when the US
solidified its global empire ambitions. The CIA was founded in 1947 and the regime change coup
in Iran was 1953.
Greg Maybury writes in "Another
Splendid Little Coup
": "Placing to one side
an early dress rehearsal in Syria in 1949
, the Iran coup was the first post-War exercise
in regime change upon the part of Anglo-American alliance " Just
this month the US government released documents
showing the CIA and State Department's
planning and implementation of the coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of
Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh . This release
supplements one from
2013
that did not reveal the full role of the US in the coup.
The Iran coup was crude compared to more modern efforts but had the ingredients that have
become common – civil society protests against the government, media reports supporting
the protests, agents within the government supporting the coup and replacement of the
government with a US-friendly regime. The Iran coup may have been the most costly mistake in US
foreign policy because it
undermined
a secular democratic government in Iran
that could have been the example for the region.
Instead the US installed the brutal Shah of Iran, whose rule ended in the 1979 revolution, in
which, as Maybury reports, the US was also implicated because it felt the Shah had overstayed
his welcome.
The Iran coup was perceived as a great CIA success, so it was copied in other Middle Eastern
countries as well as countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. Regime change is
still a major tool of US foreign policy. There is a long-term ongoing coup campaign in
Venezuela, with its most recent episode last week in which a
helicopter attack on the Supreme Court was tied to the US DEA and CIA
. The US has allied
with oligarchs, supported violent protests and provided funds for the opposition, which has
also worked to undermine the Venezuelan economy -- a tactic the US has used in other coups, e.g.
the
coup of Allende in Chile
.
The
coup in Ukraine
, which the media falsely calls a 'democratic revolution,' was, as the head
of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor says, "
the most blatant coup in history
." The CIA and State Department played the lead
roles.
Victoria
Nuland
, an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, bragged that the US spent $5
billion to build civil society opposition against a government that leaned toward Russia. The
government funded civil society opposition through
US AID, which is the open vehicle for what the
CIA
used to do covertly, along with the
National
Endowment for Democracy
. This funding was used to build oppositional civil society groups
and create destabilization. They focused on the issue of
corruption
, which
exists in every government, and built it up to a centerpiece for regime change. The US allied
with extremist right-wing groups in Ukraine.
The US has perfected regime change operations from the 1950s up through today. The standard
method of operation is finding an issue to cause dissent, building opposition in a well funded
civil society 'movement', manipulating the media, putting in place US friendly leaders and
blaming US opposition for the coup to hide US involvement. This approach is consistent no
matter which party is in power in the US.
The Kleptocratic Oligarch Coup In The United States
One difference in the US is that money plays an outsized influence in US elections . The
wealthy can buy the government they want through campaign donations and by anonymous spending
but the tools of color revolutions are still needed to legitimize the government. Legitimacy is
getting harder to buy. Many realize we live in
a mirage
democracy
. The
Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs reported
in 2016 the extent of the loss of legitimacy
of US government:
"Nine in 10 Americans lack confidence in the country's political system, and among a
normally polarized electorate, there are few partisan differences in the public's lack of
faith in the political parties, the nominating process, and the branches of government."
Civil society also has a strong role. John Stauber
writes
that
:
"The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation
magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones
, is primarily a political public relations creation of America's richest corporate elite,
the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and
environmental consciousness, and don't bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right
to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly
of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."
Civil society groups created or aligned with the Democratic Party are defining the new form
of false-resistance as electing Democrats. The Democrats, as they have done throughout history
as the oldest political party, know how to
control movements and lead them into
ineffectiveness
to support the Democratic Party agenda. We described, in "
Obamacare:
The Biggest Insurance Scam in History
," how this was done skillfully during the health
reform process in 2009. This
new resistance is just another
tool to empower the elites,
not resistance to the oligarchic-kleptocrats that control both
parties. In fact, a major problem in progressive advocacy is the
funding ties
between
large non-profits and corporate interests. The corruption of money is seen in organizations
that advocate for corporate-friendly policies in
education
,
health care
,
energy and climate
,
labor
, and
other issues.
Color Revolution Tools Used In The US
Now the tools the US uses for regime change around the world are being used at home to
funnel activist energy and efforts into the Democratic party and electoral activities. In order
to resist this new "resistance" we need to be aware of it and how it operates. We need to see
through propaganda, such as RussiaGate, and attempts to manipulate the masses through scripted
events that are portrayed as organic, such as the recent "sit in" by Rep. John Lewis and Sen.
Cory Booker on the Capitol steps, or through highly emotional cultural content that portrays
the plutocratic parties as parties of the people. We have to remember that the root issue is
plutocracy and the US has two plutocratic parties, often referred to as "The Duopoly."
Muller was Bush II 9/11 coverup guy. he is vulnerable.
Trump correctly identified Muller investigation to be a
"witch hunt"
telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey
"bothersome." So there should be a central figure who organizes that the defense and Bannon with
his media formidable skills is suitable for this role, because he understands the political
"kitchen", while Trump does not. Actually all Trump adversaries have skeletons in the closets
too, so "nuclear option" is always on the table. 9/11 provides plenty such skeletons for all
leading anti-Trump figures. But in the meantime it is important to know the difference between
rational political move and political suicide.
The fact that Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers now bound Muller to
lekk at leakers too, not only at Trump. It he does not so he is open attacks for partisanship and
carrying water for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich ..."
For Trump, Bannon's distinctive vocabulary was another point of his appeal. Bannon gloried
in the slights and scorn directed at Trump supporters, proudly insisting that elitist
Clintonites looked down on them as "hobbits," "Grundoons," and -- co-opting Clinton's own
ill-advised term -- "deplorables." Anyone who thought otherwise was a "mook" or a "schmendrick."
And Clinton herself was the subject of a steady stream of derision, carefully pitched to
Trump's own biases and insecurities and delivered with the passion of a cornerman firing up a
boxer for one last grueling round in the ring. Clinton, Bannon would insist, was "a
résumé," "a total phony," "terrible on the stage," "a grinder, but not smart," "a
joke who hides behind a complacent media," "an apple-polisher who couldn't pass the D.C. bar
exam," "thinks it's her turn" but "has never accomplished anything in her life" -- and, for good
measure, was "a f---ing bull dyke."
Although Trump didn't dwell on policy details, Bannon pitched in there, too. When Trump came
under fire because his campaign hadn't produced a single policy paper, Bannon arranged for
Nunberg and Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, to quickly write a white paper on Trump's
immigration policies. When the campaign released it, Coulter, without disclosing her role,
tweeted that it was "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."
Bannon and Breitbart also operated as shock troops for Trump's on-and-off war with Fox News.
Trump's fixation with the cable network was a powerful force throughout the campaign. Although
he had appeared regularly on Fox for years and had staunch backers at the network, Sean Hannity
chief among them, Fox wasn't always friendly. And Trump was stung by a humiliation he'd
suffered from Rupert Murdoch. He often told intimates how, as he was preparing to launch his
campaign, his daughter Ivanka had arranged a lunch with Murdoch to share the news. Soon after
the three of them were seated and the waiter brought their soup, Ivanka spoke up: "My father
has something to tell you."
"What's that?" Murdoch said.
"He's going to run for president."
"He's not running for president," Murdoch replied without looking up from his soup.
"No, he is!" she insisted.
Murdoch changed the subject.
Trump nursed the slight for months. "He didn't even look up from his soup!" he'd complain.
Nowhere was Trump's clash with the network more pronounced than in the aftermath of the first
GOP debate -- sponsored by Fox News and co-moderated by Megyn Kelly -- on August 6 in Cleveland.
Trump was particularly worried about Kelly, whose show he had backed out of three days earlier,
complaining to a friend that she was out to get him. (Bannon had a special loathing for Kelly,
just as some Fox hosts did for him. "Bannon is human garbage," one of them told me.)
When the lights went up in Cleveland, Kelly went right after Trump, confronting him with his
history of sexist statements. "You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,'
and 'disgusting animals,' " she said. "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a
man we should elect as president?"
Within minutes of the debate's end, even as Trump was still nursing his grievances on live
television, reporters started to realize that the revelations of his past behavior, so bluntly
excavated by Kelly, had caused an intense reaction among Republican voters -- not against Trump
but against Fox News. Bannon and the Breitbart editors had the same reaction and immediately
turned on Kelly with a fusillade of negative articles slamming her as a backstabbing,
self-promoting betrayer of the cause. Breitbart soon became the locus of pro-Trump, anti-Fox
conservative anger. Between Thursday night, when the debate took place, and Sunday evening,
Breitbart published 25 stories mentioning Kelly, and
the site's editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow
, went on CNN to accuse Fox News of "trying to take
out Donald Trump" and staging "a gotcha debate."
The intensity of Republican anger stunned Fox News executives. The debate had drawn a record
24 million viewers. Now many of them were apoplectic at the network's top talent. In a panic,
Ailes called Bannon and begged him to call off the attacks. "Steve, this isn't fair, and it's
killing us," Ailes said. "You have to stop it." "F--- that, that was outrageous what she did!"
Bannon retorted. "She pulled every trick out of the leftist playbook."
The call ended without resolution. Bannon and Ailes would not speak again for almost a year.
Even after Ailes and Trump patched up their relationship, Bannon refused to relent. In fact,
Breitbart's attacks on Kelly grew uglier. "Flashback: Megyn Kelly Discusses Her Husband's Penis
and Her Breasts on Howard Stern," read a Breitbart headline a week after the debate. Ailes
eventually dispatched his personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., to the Breitbart embassy in D.C.
to deliver a message to Bannon to end the war on Kelly. When he arrived, Johnson got straight
to the point: If Bannon didn't stop immediately, he would never again appear on Fox News.
Bannon was incensed at the threat.
"She's pure evil," he told Johnson. "And she will turn on [Ailes] one day. We're going
full-bore. We're not going to stop. I'm gonna unchain the dogs." The conversation was brief and
unpleasant, and it ended with a cinematic flourish. "I want you to go back to New York and
quote me to Roger," Bannon said. " 'Go f--- yourself.' "
Bannon remained a loyal outsider for most of the campaign. Then in August 2016, as Trump
looked to be spiraling toward a blowout loss, Rebekah Mercer, whose family put millions of
dollars into both Breitbart and Trump's presidential run, helped arrange for Bannon to take
over. One weakness of Trump's campaign was that it was guided almost entirely by the
candidate's impulses. Bannon kept Trump focused on a clear target at which to direct his ample
talent for invective: "Crooked Hillary." And he brought an encyclopedic knowledge of damaging
material with which to attack her, gleaned from having masterminded Peter Schweizer's
best-selling 2015 book,
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments
and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
(another Mercer-backed effort). The book
gave Trump an overarching theme in which to fit his attacks, one that the media, thanks partly
to Schweizer's and Bannon's efforts, was already predisposed to accept: that Clinton was
corrupt. And because Bannon's convulsive extremism was now setting the tone, no one would hold
him back. "It's not going to be a traditional campaign," he said shortly after his hiring.
It wasn't. The great test arrived on October 7, when David Fahrenthold, a reporter at the
Washington
Post,
was leaked outtake footage from a 2005 Trump appearance on the NBC
show
Access Hollywood.
"When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump told host Billy
Bush. "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy."
It looked like Trump had finally said something that even he couldn't rebound from, and
Republican officials quickly began abandoning the campaign. "I am not going to defend Donald
Trump -- not now, not in the future," Paul Ryan told his House colleagues in a private call.
As
New York
reported
, Reince Priebus urged Trump to quit or "go down with a worse
election loss than Barry Goldwater's." Bannon stood firm, although even he feared Trump might
be finished. Still, he told an associate, it wouldn't be a total loss. "Our backup strategy,"
he said of Clinton, "is to f--- her up so bad that she can't govern. If she gets 43 percent of
the vote, she can't claim a mandate." Psyching himself up, he added, "My goal is that by
November 8, when you hear her name, you're gonna throw up."
Trump, who never apologized for any offense, took the unprecedented step of
expressing remorse
about the comments on the
Access Hollywood
tape in a hastily produced web video. "I
said it, I was wrong, and I apologize," he said to the camera. But at Bannon's urging, his
apology quickly morphed into an attack on the Clintons that made it clear he would not be
dropping out. "I've said some foolish things," he said, but "Bill Clinton has actually abused
women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims. We will discuss
this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday." With Bannon by his side, Trump
would navigate the greatest crisis of his campaign by putting his foot on the gas. When I
reached Bannon to ask about the strategy for the upcoming debate, he didn't miss a beat:
"Attack, attack, attack, attack."
Bannon had long believed that Bill Clinton's sexual history and Hillary's alleged complicity
in covering it up was something that "has to be concentrated and brought up," as he'd once put
it. His original thought was that relitigating the scandals would demoralize a younger
generation of feminist women unfamiliar with the tawdry details. But with the
Access
Hollywood
tape, Bannon saw that injecting Clinton's accusers into the race would force the
media to devote attention to more than just Trump's damaging tape. The trick was to do it in a
way that couldn't be ignored. Watching Bill Cosby's public evisceration by his accusers the
year before, Bannon had noticed that their on-camera testimony was especially powerful because
most of the victims had been assaulted decades earlier and were now elderly women and thus
inherently sympathetic. Bannon thought a similar dynamic would apply to the Clinton
accusers.
On Sunday afternoon, 90 minutes before the start of the debate at Washington University in
St. Louis, word spread in the press corps that Trump was about to hold an event. As reporters
squeezed into a conference room, Trump was seated at the center of a makeshift dais
flanked by four women
well known to veteran political reporters: Kathleen Willey, Juanita
Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, and Paula Jones. Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones had all accused Bill
Clinton of sexual assault or harassment; in 1975, a judge had appointed Hillary Clinton, then a
young lawyer, to defend a man accused of raping Shelton, who was then 12 years old.
After brief remarks from Trump, the women took turns defending him and assailing the
Clintons. The shock of what was unfolding prompted frenzied live coverage on cable news. As
cameras panned the room, they captured Bannon standing in the back, grinning wickedly. The
brazenness of Bannon's gambit, and the visual of Trump seated among Clinton's accusers, ensured
that the primary imagery on TV would cease to be the
Access Hollywood
footage.
A plan to seat the women at the front of the debate audience to rattle Clinton and assure
them a steady presence in the camera shot had to be scuttled. In the end, it didn't matter.
Bannon had always believed that Trump was his own greatest weapon. As 67 million people tuned
in to the debate, Trump waited for the inevitable
Access Hollywood
question and sprung
his counterattack. "If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse," he said. "Mine are words, and his
was action. His was -- what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of
politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women Hillary Clinton attacked those same
women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight."
Outside the campaign, the Clinton-accuser gambit was seen as a transparently cynical ploy to
change the subject. But Trump's brain trust was seeing numbers that said attacking Clinton was
succeeding. A smattering of public polls indicated the same thing: More respondents improved
their opinion of Trump than of Clinton after watching the debate.
Then, within days of the debate,
multiple women came forward to accuse Trump of having groped or kissed them without their
consent
. The wave of new accusers put the campaign on a war footing. The distinction they
needed to draw, Bannon told staffers, was between Trump's "locker room" behavior and what he
alleged was Bill Clinton's sexually violent behavior. "This has nothing to do with consensual
sexual affairs and infidelities," Bannon said in a strategy meeting that week. "We're going to
turn him into Bill Cosby. He's a violent sexual predator who physically abuses women who he
assaults. And she takes the lead on the intimidation of the victims."
Trump seemed to relish the prospect of ramping up his attacks on Hillary. And then, with
just over a week to go until Election Day, he got an unexpected boost when FBI director James
Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's private email server. Trump's
internal polls, which showed him already ascending before the Comey letter, now had him turning
sharply upward in every battleground state. Out on the stump, he ratcheted up his criticism of
Clinton. In speeches and ads, he channeled Bannon's conspiratorial worldview, accusing Clinton
of plotting "the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial
powers, her special-interest friends." When Trump won the election, the lesson the 45th
president took away from the campaign seemed to be that if he fought hard enough, he could
survive anything.
Just six months into his presidency, Trump's faith in that proposition is being tested. His
brief tenure has been shot through with turmoil, his legislative agenda is teetering on the
cusp of collapse, and Robert Mueller's special-counsel investigation is an ever-present source
of frustration. The Associated Press revealed that Trump's anger has reached a point where he
is yelling at television sets in the White House, upset by the tenor of his coverage.
For Bannon, though, things are looking up. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris
climate accord was a sign that nationalism still holds sway, as was his July speech in Poland
warning of the decline of the West. The Supreme Court's decision in late June to allow the
administration's travel ban to
take partial effect
was another victory for Bannon, its principal architect. The House just
passed two immigration bills, and, White House officials say privately, Congress will soon act
on four more. Bannon's feud with Kushner has quieted down. And so far, while at least ten White
House officials and former aides, including Kushner, have retained lawyers in the special
counsel's probe, distancing themselves from Trump, Bannon is not among them.
Instead, he's back in the bunker alongside a boss who is often angry, always under fire,
and, on the matter of Russia, increasingly isolated from all but a handful of advisers and
family members. Early on, Bannon's war room displayed characteristic aggression, with Kasowitz
holding a press conference to slam Comey in response to the former FBI director's June 8
testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. "[It] is overwhelmingly clear that there
have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this
administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged
communications," Kasowitz said. "Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these
leakers."
Many of Trump's current and former aides cheered this lunge for the jugular. "Kasowitz is a
junkyard dog, exactly the guy Trump needs in his corner right now," says Barry Bennett, a
former campaign adviser. In TV appearances, war-room attorney Jay Sekulow -- Trump's Lanny Davis -- suggested that Mueller is biased, a charge Trump amplified on Twitter by calling the
investigation a
"witch hunt"
and telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with
Comey "bothersome."
But those personal attacks diminished in late June, after John Dowd, a prominent Washington
attorney and veteran of the Justice Department, joined Trump's defense. References to a "war
room" have also been dropped for the more tempered "president's outside legal team." And on
June 28, Trump's lawyers decided to postpone filing a Justice Department complaint against
Comey for having helped leak memos about his conversations with Trump to reporters -- a move
Bloomberg News attributed to a new attitude of "professional courtesy" toward Mueller. "It
could become an adversarial relationship, but at present the legal team decided it was best to
hold off and not file those complaints," says Mark Corallo, the spokesman for the legal team.
Which is not to say that Bannon's bare-knuckled instincts have vanished, but rather that he's
come to understand that going after Mueller personally isn't the best move -- at least right
now.
Davis himself says this was a necessary course correction. "There is huge danger in
attacking Mueller directly," says Davis. "[White House counsel] Don McGahn, Bannon, and the
political side of the White House ought to be listening." For now, they seem to be. And at
least for the time being, Trump, too, has shifted his target from Mueller and Comey to Mika
Brzezinski and CNN.
One critical element of the Lanny Davis model, says Davis, is having a president who has a
firm enough grasp of the legal and political stakes that he's willing to focus on his day job
and let his lawyers do the talking for him. But even some of Trump's defenders admit that not
only is the president unlikely to show such deference, he is never more than a bad news cycle
away from firing Mueller.
"Bannon's a smart guy -- he knows the difference between success and political suicide," says
Davis. "But could he even stop him?" When it came to Comey, the answer was no. As Mueller
expands his team of investigators, the question now is how long Trump's advisers will be able
to dissuade him from going after the special counsel. "One thing that's always dangerous is
telling Donald Trump that he can't do something," says Roger Stone. "Because then he wants to
do it."
If Trump were to fire Mueller
, numerous Republicans say privately that they would break
with the president. "It would be a repeat of the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when Nixon fired
Archibald Cox," the Watergate special prosecutor, says Davis.
There's no question, though, who would lead the attack on Trump's critics if such a scenario
were to unfold. "At the end of the day," says Sam Nunberg, "the question is, are we going to
stand with Trump when he fires Mueller? Steve will do it."
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited
an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to
scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that
his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media
outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously
false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.
A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press
when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community
had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.
"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were
the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now
reports
. "The rest were doing other work."
Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently
reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.
"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him
get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working
under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.
A few days later, the Associated Press
echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly
blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.
The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections
at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.
The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable
truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.
"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact
wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies,"
CNN blared .
The New York Times
took
it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading"
narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads
on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."
But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance
of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest
echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political
operatives and anonymous "officials."
Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from
the top.
The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few
weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies
that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report
incorrectly claiming there are
19 intelligence agencies).
She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt
to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.
"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere
in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks,
these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply
disturbing."
Trump took the bait.
"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated
over and over in the press as evidence
he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our
country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."
With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.
Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And
the fact checks came rolling in.
The New York Times
,
Politico ,
ABC News ,
Politifact and PBS
all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number
with authority in its reporting, saying
in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."
The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate
talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.
"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from
the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line
in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.
Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now
framed it as common
knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military
and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"
The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a
particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."
All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes,
the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list
of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.
The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence
organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under
DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless
a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.
That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down
at the speed of common sense and Google.
Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate
agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of
the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately
reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.
Nevertheless, the claim persisted.
"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump
in
an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"
"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the
contrary," the Daily Beast
reported
that same day .
NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget
in
a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting
report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.
"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But
since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning
was clear."
Reuters, too, touted the number
in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.
The declassified DNI report that followed in January
provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion
was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times
conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)
A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing
about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.
"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence
community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting
the record.
"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And
we all know how that's right."
Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly
involved in this assessment, plus my office."
"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.
"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a
special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."
So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that
none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they,
since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?
At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report
made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.
Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim
in an interview
with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.
"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in
agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence'
that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."
A little while later the bogus claim
showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation
fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then
twice
more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well
in a June
11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim,
which was rather strangely corrected four days later.
After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta
actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where
does that number come from?" Acosta asked.
The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying
Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially
doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim
mostly false in a separate fact check.
So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking
point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than
six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly
reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.
We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters --
proved
more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia
investigation.
The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.
Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the
news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally
coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.
The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.
Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30."
Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out
to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.
In a report casting
the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe.
The White House refuted the anecdote
in no uncertain terms
the following day.
Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid
definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an
infected site on a work computer.
CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey
would
refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such
thing. In fact he
corroborated Trump's account .
Just weeks after retracting a story
on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their
first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course,
it was wrong
. One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.
We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian
meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled
in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should
be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.
The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions
from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the
election of 2016.
Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans
elected him to office.
What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading
from an indictment?
President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing
the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.
President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from
offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at
all?
Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war
and averting a new war in Korea.
Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring
about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all
its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.
We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into
a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep
of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth
province of Kosovo.
Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance
and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others
see us."
Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so,
and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing
up for his country?
Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough
on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the
present moment."
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was
done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was
the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.
As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode
of social misconduct: "Get over it!"
We have other fish to fry.
In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have
a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the
U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.
Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased
trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing
warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim
belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.
Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's
transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.
Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers
with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing
sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.
Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.
If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that
can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military
option that could bring nuclear war.
Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can,
this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively
and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence
to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures
by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.
Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story
used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was
convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media
leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for
someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate.
Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will
be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for
Israel and their efforts showed as much.
Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to
Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or
they're just playing into the narrative.
Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent,
that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents.
Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics
of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly
hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently
absurd.
"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear
warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this
or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."
Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to
leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
But what was done cannot be undone."
There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there
is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible
evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag
cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.
How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So
far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate
media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying:
"One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."
As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats
like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump
has sidelined just before French's Macron.
It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist
and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career.
The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.
Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him
at all?
exactly!
... ... ...
If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than
the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual
sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.
If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable
with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher
EU.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort
of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think
he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is
justified based on their beliefs?
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic
emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the
false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush
aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump
as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in
place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering
organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked
(read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent
analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group
of like-minded people "
I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016
presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left
and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain
more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.
Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia
rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find
themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with
his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing
on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.
I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's
not good.
@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of
them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged,
let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked
the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given
that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the
world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections
by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.
So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online
unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?
from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus
. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine
the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting
that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused
to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike
that told the FBI that it was the Russians.
Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems
that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company
is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report
that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. .
.
@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree
with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example:
"Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."
USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic
it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the
opponent's premises then quibbling.
"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."
"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."
"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."
An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny
protests in response to blows.
The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat
the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government
in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths
of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century,
but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a
hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia
in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk'
support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their
lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could
not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."
Pat,
You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as
the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They
are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government
says at face value .always demand proof.
@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."
@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."
Today, just one day before his long-anticipated meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin,
President Trump has given a fiery speech in Poland denouncing Russian "meddling" in Ukraine
and Russian support for the Syrian government.
He also affirmed that the US would "stand firmly behind" NATO's Article 5 on mutual
defense . What might this mean for tomorrow's meeting? Tune in to today's Liberty
Report:
"... Today's Washington is overrun by two kinds of crimes. The first is the still-speculative kind, which the Washington press corps obsesses over "Trump -Russia collusion, obstruction of justice" despite no evidence of its existence. By all accounts, special counsel Robert Mueller's growing team of Democratic lawyers intends to devote itself to this fiction. ..."
"... Yet if Mr. Mueller were serious about bringing down a threat to the nation, or even carving himself a place in history, he'd be tackling the second kind of crime, the real kind. These are the crimes that occur constantly and actually harm national security, even if they're routinely ignored by a self-interested media. We are talking of course about the serial leaking of sensitive information, the daily profession of a new government elite akin to an organized crime network. ..."
"... Lucky for Mr. Mueller, he doesn't even need his army of legal investigators to get an immediate handle on this mafia. He can instead stroll down to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. That's the purview of Sen. Ron Johnson, who keeps dogged oversight of government among his many self-set tasks. ..."
"... It's a bloodless accounting of a national-security failure, perpetrated by dozens of government employees willfully breaking the law. ..."
"... The first 126 days of the Trump administration featured 125 stories that leaked harmful information. Just under one a day. The committee staff judged the stories against a 2009 Barack Obama executive order that laid out what counted as information likely to damage national security. And as it chose to not include borderline leaks or "palace intrigue" stories, that number is an understatement. ..."
"... For reference, the first 126 days of the Obama term featured 18 stories that met the criteria. Ten of those were actually leaks about George W. Bush's "torture memo," which Mr. Obama released. ..."
Originally published by Kimberley A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal
Today's Washington is overrun by two kinds of crimes. The first is the still-speculative kind, which the Washington press corps obsesses over
"Trump
-Russia collusion, obstruction of justice" despite no evidence of its existence. By all accounts,
special counsel Robert Mueller's growing team of Democratic lawyers intends to devote itself to this
fiction.
Yet if Mr. Mueller were serious about bringing down a threat to the nation, or even carving himself
a place in history, he'd be tackling the second kind of crime, the real kind. These are the crimes
that occur constantly and actually harm national security, even if they're routinely ignored by a
self-interested media. We are talking of course about the serial leaking of sensitive information,
the daily profession of a new government elite akin to an organized crime network.
Lucky for Mr. Mueller, he doesn't even need his army of legal investigators to get an immediate
handle on this mafia. He can instead stroll down to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs. That's the purview of Sen. Ron Johnson, who keeps dogged oversight of government
among his many self-set tasks. That mission resulted this week in a shocking staff analysis of the recent deluge of secret-spilling,
and the manner in which these unauthorized disclosures are harming national security. It's the first
congressional scrutiny of the leaks and notable for its straight-up nature. This is no partisan document.
It's a bloodless accounting of a national-security failure, perpetrated by dozens of government employees
willfully breaking the law.
The first 126 days of the Trump administration featured 125 stories that leaked harmful information.
Just under one a day. The committee staff judged the stories against a 2009 Barack Obama executive
order that laid out what counted as information likely to damage national security. And as it chose
to not include borderline leaks or "palace intrigue" stories, that number is an understatement.
For reference, the first 126 days of the Obama term featured 18 stories that met the criteria.
Ten of those were actually leaks about George W. Bush's "torture memo," which Mr. Obama released.
Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But
people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the
public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership
of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election
hacking has emerged.
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely.
Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of
the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal
establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal
establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define
what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic
accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether,
but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails
and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic
establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie
Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation
from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts.
They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty
Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for
the purpose of this argument.
The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained
these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report
from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left
behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece
of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access
to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't
say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of
definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article
of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able
to refute the
evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance
systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been
hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled
over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have
the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking",
yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever
of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact
I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers
to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what
actually happened.
The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike
– the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike
report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must
have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking"
meme going. On 24 May the Guardian
reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that
"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and
WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession
of, or examined by, the FBI."
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating
the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime",
while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating
its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly
investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.
So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike
claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with
the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set
up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?
Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically
deploys technology that leaves behind fake
fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.
Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that
the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery
in the Ukraine. This has been
utterly discredited.
Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media
are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher
Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell
lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.
Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague
miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do
they have business links with Russian finance?
Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are
woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons
and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good
for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.
Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject
may damage him.
The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up.
But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary.
At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm.
There is nothing there.
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive
scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started
will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by
people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream
media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy
and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from
his website .
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first
in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion
about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the
U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.
"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be
an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with
Lavrov.
Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's
role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York
said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to
the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."
U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election
for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts
said represents a top-level threat.
Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more
than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that
was reached by Russia and the United States.
While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia
had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.
Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters
that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan
- another party to the deal.
Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial
and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.
"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first
in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion
about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the
U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.
"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be
an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with
Lavrov.
Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's
role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York
said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to
the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."
U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election
for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts
said represents a top-level threat.
Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more
than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that
was reached by Russia and the United States.
While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia
had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.
Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters
that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan
- another party to the deal.
Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial
and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.
"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."
"... However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State ..."
"... Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order ..."
"... As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia. ..."
"... "General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." ..."
Why so much naked propaganda and fake news directed against Russia especially since
Trump's election?
Executive Summary:
The Deep State now fears a "partnership for peace" between the United States and
Russia more than anything else. It used to fear the natural alliance between Russia and
Germany, since the Anglo-American domination of the world would be genuinely threatened by such
a powerful geopolitical relationship. The two World Wars were engineered to pit Russia against
Germany in order to preclude such a bloc from forming. The same Neocon cabal has been very busy
setting up Europe for yet a third world war by manipulating Merkel's government against Putin's
Kremlin. The immigrant crisis that began with the wars in the Middle East and North Africa was
literally manufactured to destabilize Europe as a precursor to World War III.
However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State now has a much bigger
'problem'-the very real prospect of a United States-Russian Federation entente. For this
reason, the CIA and MSM (mainstream media) have been beating the war drums like never
before. Russia has, overnight, become the whipping boy for everything wrong with the Democratic
Party as well as the scapegoat for every major intel security lapse in the USA. The U.S.
Intelligence Community will continue to fabricate patently false stories about the Trump
Administration with respect to Russia as pre-emptive strikes to make any meaningful dialogue
politically precarious. At the request of the CIA, the MSM will also continue to publish
fake news and naked propaganda about the same in order to greatly inflame anti-Russian
sentiment.
Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017,
their New World Order is under serious assault around the globe and war has become an
apparent necessity. Populist movements and nationalist revolutions are springing up like
mushrooms across the planet. After the controlled demolition of the global economic and
financial system, the cabal considers war - World War III - as their only real option (just as
they created the Great Depression to set the stage for World War II). Inciting extreme
Russophobia has always been their means to starting the real big wars. WW3 will be no
different, unless Trump and Putin meet in broad daylight and declare Deep State the
archenemy of We the People everywhere. That's the short story, now read on for the
extended back story.
________________________________________________________
The entire anti-Russian campaign is being quite deliberately orchestrated at the highest
echelons of Deep State and the U.S. Intelligence Community.[1]
As usual, the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data
point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally
oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme
Russophobia.
"General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the
Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the
Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of
the so-called Gehlen Organization." (Source:
www.cia.gov )
... ... ...
The central organizing principle , which is always followed religiously by the secret NWO
ruling cabal, concerns the strict maintenance of the perpetual war economy .
Toward that end, world peace can never be achieved. Rather, only the false notion that peace
may be attained - at some magical moment in the future - is ever projected.
Consequently, the imaginary split between East and West is always exploited to the max by
the ruling cabal. The East is just far and foreign enough relative to the West that it can
always be successfully set up as the [fictitious] bogeyman.
... ... ...Clinton
and Podesta
As always, there are several levels of intrigue going on simultaneously whenever Deep
State undertakes such an all-consuming global operation as the "Russian hack" psyop. The
sheer domination of the daily news cycle by "Russia this; Russia that" is always a reflection
of what TPTB really do fear the most. However, there is also a purely political point being
scored with this completely contrived Russophobia black op.
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman was John Podesta. Both Clinton and Podesta have
gone down in U.S. presidential election history as the two of the biggest losers of all time.
Bear in mind that this was Clinton's second humiliating loss after being blindsided by Barack
Obama in 2008. Not only did these two very bad losers need a very good excuse for all the livid
donors, they were also desperate for a story that would pacify their ultra-sensitive and
still-crying liberal base.
There are actually multiple reasons why these two characters required the "excuse of the
millennium" as to why they just got trounced by Trump. The very best they could come up
with was the "Russian election hack". This false accusation led to the baseless conclusion that
the election was hacked by the Russians and, therefore, the Democrats were powerless in defeat,
even though no such thing happened.
This gave Podesta, especially, something very BIG to talk about at a time when his direct
involvement with Pizzagate was being virally exposed in the worldwide Alt Media, and
then to a lesser extent by the MSM. Once Pizzagate was exposed as Podesta's Achilles'
heel, he became like a wounded animal thrashing about in sheer desperation. This is when the
anti-Russian campaign was really racheted up because the very future of the Democratic Party
was hanging in the balance as was his political fate.
Clinton also needed to blame anyone but herself, being the most inferior and corrupt,
caustic and unlikeable, offensive and dangerous, mean-spirited and vengeful presidential
candidate in U.S history. How she ever even got the nomination can only be explained by the
staunch support she received from the warmongering Neocons. They prepared her over the course
of her entire career to be the POTUS who would wage war on Russia, even if it meant going
nuclear on them.
Most expediently, the concocted "Russian hacking" narrative by Podesta perfectly plays into
the Neocon machination to provoke Russia into a regional war (e.g. Ukraine) on the way to
triggering a full-scale WW3. The war propaganda also feeds into their desire for massive war
profiteering in the form of gun running, human trafficking, drug smuggling, artifact black
marketing, oil theft and other illicit enterprises which are easily covered up in the fog of
war.
Lastly, this "Russian hacking" approach, the Neocons hope, will afford them the opportunity
to again take back the Motherland from the Russian people. The Neocon cabal longs for the day
when they can complete their Russia exploitation project via their oligarch agents of predatory
capitalism and the draconian application of neoliberal economics. What follows is the back
story to this multi-decade conspiratorial movement that has brought so much death and
destruction to Russia for a century, as well as to the world-at-large. STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For
World Domination
The bottom line here is that neither Clinton nor Podesta would take any blame whatsoever for
their epic failure. Clinton herself had issued many anti-Russian screeds during the debates in
order to smear Trump so it was a very convenient excuse when they were soundly defeated at the
polls. It's a well known fact that criminally insane psychopaths will never assume
responsibility for their misconduct and/or unlawful actions. When such bad actors enter
politics, their incorrigible criminal behavior mixes with those of similar ilk, and then all
hell can break loose as it is across America today. This link explains the surreptitious
process of ponerization in much greater detail: PONERIZATION: How the American Republic was taken
over by political cliques of criminally insane psychopaths
Deep State
Because of so many unanticipated eventualities, the agents of Deep State are
working triple time to sow seed of chaos and confusion everywhere and anywhere. It's as though
Pandora's box has been opened in every nation on Earth wherein each is now plagued with so much
political pandemonium and social mayhem, economic instability and financial insecurity.
In light of this rapidly devolving predicament, it's more essential than ever for President
Trump and President Putin to meet face-to-face in order to meet this extraordinary global
challenge. The world is truly at a crossroad: it can follow the Neocons to more war or the
righteous leaders to an enduring peace.
The current generation has never witnessed two presidents of the 2 superpowers willing to
sit down with each other in a mutually respectful manner. This alone bodes well for humanity;
now, if only they can be compelled by their good conscience to speak to each other as members
of the universal brotherhood.
Remember, Deep State knows that it will be like the Titanic colliding with the
iceberg should Trump and Putin cooperate to expose the real "Beast" that has terrorized the
planet for so long. And Deep State will be the Titanic. Should enough people wake up
to this unfolding reality, everything can change in a day and a night. There is nothing so
strong and formidable as people power in this age of populist movements and authentic
revolutions. Therefore, the real mission here is to enlighten as many people as possible before
things really get so out of control that we move past the point of no return.
Trump cannot allow a fake Russian conspiracy to keep him from his stated mission. He said
many times on the campaign trail that there was no reason not to make peace with Russia. And
Trump asked why anyone would ever want war with the nuclear superpower. Putin is his own man
and quite willing to meet with Trump. The vast majority of his people only want peace and good
will between the two nations.
"... In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump secure the White House. ..."
"... "It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he told Fox News. ..."
In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the
CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump
secure the White House.
Suggesting that the Obama administration's lack of transparency makes it impossible to definitively conclude that the Russians
were behind the hacking of US political parties, Bolton, who was reportedly appointed as Trump's deputy secretary of state (the second
highest position at the State Department), appeared to break away from his characteristically national security-first philosophy
to assert a theory about foul play at the highest levels of government,
"It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false
flag operation," he
told Fox News.
When asked to explain what he meant by the highly suggestive phrase "false flag," Bolton gave a hazy answer.
"We just don't know," stated Bolton, refusing to say whether the US government was purposely misleading the public, or worse,
had a hand in the "false flag operation."
"But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree," said Bolton,
adding:
If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints
We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the
Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don't know whether
it is Russian inspired or a false flag
Here's the transcript, detailing the relevant part of Bolton's interview with Eric Shawn:
Bolton's comments reflected echo the skeptical attitude of the Trump team in the wake of The Washington Post's report
on the CIA's unsettling findings about Russia's interference during the presidential election. Trump, himself, called the CIA's assessment
"ridiculous" in a pre-taped interview that aired Sunday.
"I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it," the president-elect told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "Every week it's another
excuse." Trumped
added that "nobody really knows" who was behind the hacking of emails belonging to top Clinton advisors and DNC officials.
"... In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump secure the White House. ..."
"... "It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he told Fox News. ..."
In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the
CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump
secure the White House.
Suggesting that the Obama administration's lack of transparency makes it impossible to definitively conclude that the Russians
were behind the hacking of US political parties, Bolton, who was reportedly appointed as Trump's deputy secretary of state (the second
highest position at the State Department), appeared to break away from his characteristically national security-first philosophy
to assert a theory about foul play at the highest levels of government,
"It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false
flag operation," he
told Fox News.
When asked to explain what he meant by the highly suggestive phrase "false flag," Bolton gave a hazy answer.
"We just don't know," stated Bolton, refusing to say whether the US government was purposely misleading the public, or worse,
had a hand in the "false flag operation."
"But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree," said Bolton,
adding:
If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints
We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the
Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don't know whether
it is Russian inspired or a false flag
Here's the transcript, detailing the relevant part of Bolton's interview with Eric Shawn:
Bolton's comments reflected echo the skeptical attitude of the Trump team in the wake of The Washington Post's report
on the CIA's unsettling findings about Russia's interference during the presidential election. Trump, himself, called the CIA's assessment
"ridiculous" in a pre-taped interview that aired Sunday.
"I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it," the president-elect told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "Every week it's another
excuse." Trumped
added that "nobody really knows" who was behind the hacking of emails belonging to top Clinton advisors and DNC officials.
FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL '72 by Hunter S. Thompson is a great, easy, blast from the past .for those of you who
enjoy SHATTERED type books, I think you will enjoy this ..
McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election and pretty much no one under 70 will remember much of the '72
election, unless they were political junkies from "their get-go" .
Some 1972/2016 parallels and wierdities:
* The DNC was burgled by the GOP (Watergate) and in '16 hacked by the Russians (??)
* The GOP had one candidate (Nixon) while the Dems had a bunch including Muskie, Hube, Wallace and McGovern was the surprise winner
* Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
* Wallace and Trump played to the same crowd
* In October 1972 only 3% of the population thought that Watergate was a "serious problem"
* The McGovern ground game in Wisconsin was a marvel of its time (see Gene Pokorney) ..so, theoretically was Hillary's
* Although the USA was/is involved in WAR, once the main campaigning began, the WAR was not a major issue in either election
* Eagleton was a big problem for McGovern and Bill was a big problem for Hillary
* The FBI was accused of releasing Eagleton's medical records and Comey, was accused of stuff, too
* The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached .
At any rate, this book is an easy and prescient Summer Beach Read ..and, those who like this genre, may also "Like" Tim Crouse's
THE BOYS ON THE BUS ..
50 years ago, we the reading public has to wait 1-2 years for the "Inside Scoop" books to be published .today, thanks to Lambert
and so many others, we can "get the haps" pretty much simultaneously with the candidates and their staffs .
Happy 4th to Lambert and thanks for all you do four us .
Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
I knew Jeb would go nowhere once the media started ignoring him 24/7 and trotted out 12 Trump stories a day. Absolutely predicted
Trump's nomination close to a year before he was actually nominated.
I am only 60, but here is evidence that I remember a little from that time. There was a political saying . . .
"Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw. Nixon/ Agnew in '72!"
.shinola, if one posts here, chances are pretty good that one will know a bit about the '72 election .my current peer group
of friends (68-74) had little or no memory of the '72 election as they were not "in" to politics or voting then .I wonder how
many MSM or TV talkingheads are well versed in this election?
.different clue, great comment .I wonder if our current President will bring the Game of Bridge back into fashion (it was still
BIG in '72) . playing Bridge in the Chevy Chase Country Club Card Room would give people a continuous opportunity to shout out
their bid of :
"4 NO Trump!!!!"
even when they held 13 Spades, etc ..or, held nary an Ace or Face Card ..
My "hippie" 7th grade social studies teacher took us on a field trip from the burbs to downtown Albany to see McGovern at a
campaign rally. My first political experience.
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on
July 1, 2017 by mike
I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely
necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him
in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented
holies.
President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters,
and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists
- the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been
able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no
limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that
are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.
Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator
Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress.
Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures,
whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how
unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.
I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks,
and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks
have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like
lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.
Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and
to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have
been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's
election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while
the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to
tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.
Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and
do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military,
and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and
weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."
When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every
bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and
would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving
behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken
chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist
fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going
on, Ms. Mika?
But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika,
who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in
crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.
Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly
committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary
Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic
and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.
These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks,
and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness
- but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of
anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.
As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining
bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on
July 1, 2017 by mike
I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely
necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him
in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented
holies.
President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters,
and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists
- the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been
able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no
limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that
are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.
Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator
Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress.
Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures,
whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how
unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.
I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks,
and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks
have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like
lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.
Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and
to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have
been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's
election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while
the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to
tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.
Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and
do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military,
and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and
weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."
When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every
bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and
would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving
behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken
chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist
fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going
on, Ms. Mika?
But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika,
who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in
crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.
Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly
committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary
Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic
and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.
These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks,
and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness
- but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of
anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.
As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining
bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.
FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL '72 by Hunter S. Thompson is a great, easy, blast from the past .for those of you who
enjoy SHATTERED type books, I think you will enjoy this ..
McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election and pretty much no one under 70 will remember much of the '72
election, unless they were political junkies from "their get-go" .
Some 1972/2016 parallels and wierdities:
* The DNC was burgled by the GOP (Watergate) and in '16 hacked by the Russians (??)
* The GOP had one candidate (Nixon) while the Dems had a bunch including Muskie, Hube, Wallace and McGovern was the surprise winner
* Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
* Wallace and Trump played to the same crowd
* In October 1972 only 3% of the population thought that Watergate was a "serious problem"
* The McGovern ground game in Wisconsin was a marvel of its time (see Gene Pokorney) ..so, theoretically was Hillary's
* Although the USA was/is involved in WAR, once the main campaigning began, the WAR was not a major issue in either election
* Eagleton was a big problem for McGovern and Bill was a big problem for Hillary
* The FBI was accused of releasing Eagleton's medical records and Comey, was accused of stuff, too
* The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached .
At any rate, this book is an easy and prescient Summer Beach Read ..and, those who like this genre, may also "Like" Tim Crouse's
THE BOYS ON THE BUS ..
50 years ago, we the reading public has to wait 1-2 years for the "Inside Scoop" books to be published .today, thanks to Lambert
and so many others, we can "get the haps" pretty much simultaneously with the candidates and their staffs .
Happy 4th to Lambert and thanks for all you do four us .
Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
I knew Jeb would go nowhere once the media started ignoring him 24/7 and trotted out 12 Trump stories a day. Absolutely predicted
Trump's nomination close to a year before he was actually nominated.
I am only 60, but here is evidence that I remember a little from that time. There was a political saying . . .
"Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw. Nixon/ Agnew in '72!"
.shinola, if one posts here, chances are pretty good that one will know a bit about the '72 election .my current peer group
of friends (68-74) had little or no memory of the '72 election as they were not "in" to politics or voting then .I wonder how
many MSM or TV talkingheads are well versed in this election?
.different clue, great comment .I wonder if our current President will bring the Game of Bridge back into fashion (it was still
BIG in '72) . playing Bridge in the Chevy Chase Country Club Card Room would give people a continuous opportunity to shout out
their bid of :
"4 NO Trump!!!!"
even when they held 13 Spades, etc ..or, held nary an Ace or Face Card ..
My "hippie" 7th grade social studies teacher took us on a field trip from the burbs to downtown Albany to see McGovern at a
campaign rally. My first political experience.
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality
is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria
Recent
hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking
hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared
to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing
to discourage the politicians.
On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division
at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security
and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee
- that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.
Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed
the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.
But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed
to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged
Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington,
Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another
bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into
state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant
Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions
were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information
to sell on the Internet.
Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases
have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least
one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration
database were cyber-criminals.
Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database
last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted
personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged
or altered.
The Actions of Cybercriminals
That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified
before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video )
that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly
for the purpose of selling personal information."
Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to
have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to
gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses
– is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.
That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack
their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona
databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack
their voter registration and other databases.
"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding
at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]
State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel
for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year
is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in."
Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."
And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according
to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people
trying to get into it," he said.
Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected
193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared
to be trying to "do harm."
Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name
and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted
network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her
that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored
"frequently."
James Comey's Role
The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking
state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to
the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind
efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.
Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief
Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities"
and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and
August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.
The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data
even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia
Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4."
The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.
Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say."
But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it
cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.
It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories
with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later,
the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was
"no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.
On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement
that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only
a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious
cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral
databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS
[Russian Intelligence Services]."
Suspect Claims
But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but
highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators
from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited
a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly
Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.
But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the
architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority
of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."
Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from
CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included
a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state
or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers
and Russian intelligence.
Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the
background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump
campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding
the e-mail disclosures.
But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published
by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's
military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing
election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses
believed to be local government organizations.
But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution.
The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the
NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been
used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.
A Checkered History
So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases
reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community.
Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but
no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was
ever suggested.
Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely
outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal
voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.
When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might
use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally
unprepared to answer the question.
"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better
understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what
is there and studying it."
In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI
was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by
the hope of personal gain.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected]. Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's permission.
Political hacks picked up be Clinton stooges in intelligence agencies and guided by Clapper produced what was required on them...
Notable quotes:
"... Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia. ..."
"... It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed ..."
"... As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks. ..."
"... Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling. ..."
Yesterday
The Duran reported that the New York Times was finally forced to admit that the "17 US intelligence agencies" narrative is completely
made up fake news.
The "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative was the core foundation for which the entire Trump-Russia collusion/cooperation/connection
was built upon.
Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst
comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's
presidency, at the risk of war with Russia.
It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed
As a reminder as to
how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied
upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike,
who had to walk back their audit
conclusions on the hacks.
Below is a complete list of the 16 intelligence agencies in the US Intelligence Community, headed by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who
under the Obama White House was James R. Clapper making 17 total agencies.
Why the list?
Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident"
of Russian election meddling.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
There are many keyboard warriors itching for a civil war in the U.S. Some even type "bring it on" and post to popular Internet
forums and comment boards. But do they really know what they are asking for?
Matt Bracken has seen civil wars in various countries where he's served in our armed forces. He's been there, and it ain't pretty.
This is an important broadcast that anyone wanting to understand the war of ideologies taking place right now - the cultural war
we are seeing within the United States - should hear.
He's telling the truth. The left is using the language of incitement to war. It's the leaders and Hollywood scumbags MUST be
taken out and tried for treason. They will start a massive war if we don't neutralize them immediately.
As the instrumentalities of DOJ governance are rebuilt, We The People will probably have to wait until after the August recess
before new US Attorneys and new FBI Director are confirmed. Pivotal window of time - July/ August 2017
I love Matt Bracken. I never miss what he has to say. Scary stuff but reality is scary. Who can deny his knowledge and patriotism?
NOT me.He knows what he talks about and we better listen people. . I look for him here, on Infowars and Caravan to Midnight too.Thank
you Matt.I like to say..."Release the Bracken.".
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on June
30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media,
and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling,
one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary
Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.
The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation:
"Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama,
and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin:
Well, almost nothing."
Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:
"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the
United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."
This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's
questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name
doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:
"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say
is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there
are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one
gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."
So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because
the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And
so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the
election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question
as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect
of getting along with Russia so problematic.
Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference,
I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters
"should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have
tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more
perceptive progressives are
saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."
This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted
what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:
"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president
and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president
to make good on the promises he gave to the people."
To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that
has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:
Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the
White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American
partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of "
libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that
the Ukraine snipers who shot
at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the
end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available
to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a
number of other places." Putin has evidence of
Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took
out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported
to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier.
And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So
trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely
evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that
route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone
and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming
from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According
to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the
Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their
alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US
Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."
And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden
revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting
that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way.
Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that
this is indeed the case .
There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the
instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points
the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that
it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies
of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies
it: "I'm a capitalist!"
There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove,"
the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's
face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy
in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question
very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral
abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:
"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the
first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."
To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.
Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences
for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:
"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone.
I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on
to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about
to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace
and consciousness to the world."
Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is
that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being
a "
useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals
who used to be labeled as such.
And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to
realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely
described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing
this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it
for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man
who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and
Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.
What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both
countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which
Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything
to stop it. But why?
There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility
between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues.
Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason.
Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class,
and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.
Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against
not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a
separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even
more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions
such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.
This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict
that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national
sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts
the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.
In his famous essay, " The End of History
," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as
the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its
power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in
that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they
are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country
and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the
ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle
to the globalist project.
That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism"
of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism.
Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would
demonize him and his country for this very reason.
As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture
a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous
State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.
Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver
Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here , and the second part is
here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film –
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
RootsAction.org
and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
than pro-working-people
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
The
Hill
reported
over
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
The Hill
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
political illusions.
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
The Hill
reported.
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
commented
on
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
the country."
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
it."
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
opinion
piece
:
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
article
published
by
The Hill
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
working-class voters."
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
weapons."
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
with Russia."
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
The Hill
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
tell
them to snap out of it
.
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
real
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
News Network.
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
candidate behavior.
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
fundamentally different.
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
revenue.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
situations.
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
integer
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research)."
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
at best.
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
either.
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
showing a
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
not
just Republicans – sorry, integer
)?
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
deliver?
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
military.
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Palestine election.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
Clinton"
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
than change.
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
jealous
of
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
was
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iran.""
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
the knees
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend
against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for
succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda.
I think that the problem is that Trump
is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced
by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may
not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary
is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders
from Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule
the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be
extremely suspect. Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the
early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda,
and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray,
not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in
that direction.
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and
conflicted people!"
The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for
--
handcuffs and a perp walk?
Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".
If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts
of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal
prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified
information.
Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard
invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall
by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.
Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty"
for the status quo; and whose naďve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus
operandi of the Imperial City.
Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from
Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.
After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened
him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the
Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.
So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power
to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources
and methods" in the slightest.
The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially
Washington's adversaries–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related
communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by
publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.
Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference
in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.
Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to
obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that
gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".
Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short
of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.
But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous
coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.
That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy
Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own
demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight
jacket.
Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a
witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional
Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.
Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while
affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.
No he won't!
Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director
of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated
threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition
that Mueller fully subscribed to.
So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent
it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have
proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors-even if the crime
itself never happened.
To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal
Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind
the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.
Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.
They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's
ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while
the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.
So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.
Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still
snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing
America.
But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence
community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed
upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators
had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.
In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir
Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the
course of the next year.
Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable
sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate
attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.
So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string
of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President
and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia
and its leader.
Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine
and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII --
there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer
named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect
its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting
its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression
by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.
There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State
opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?
In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.
Pathetically, they still think its game on.
David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from
the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information
Clearing House.
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into
alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at
whipping up support for war with Russia.
The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot down a Syrian warplane, setting
off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors of the Times have the closest ties with US military
and intelligence officials and no doubt were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.
Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the language of war to assert: "A rival
foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented
nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."
The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts."
The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:
"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts
of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens
of thousands of emails to the website WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage
the Clinton campaign.
"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in some cases tried to alter or delete
voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers of more than 100 local election officials in the days before
the November 8 vote."
Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times ' assertions. What is the evidence
that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied
material to WikiLeaks, or that (other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The
entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.
If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported claims by US intelligence
agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January 2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence
apparatus, mainly to the Times and the Washington Post .
The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers, are based on a National
Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web publication, which even The Intercept admitted
contained no underlying evidence to substantiate the NSA's claims.
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead,
the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not
a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like
"we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.
In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible sources of the leaked Hillary
Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper
makes no mention of the content of the leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.
For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy," as the Times puts
it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington to manipulate elections all over the world.
One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the US government financed political
parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations, blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its
own nominees by rigging elections in countries on every continent.
Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop snooping operations against foreign
governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had
hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does
all sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.
As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies.
This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly
on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks
such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.
The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of
Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading
the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.
The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class
want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the
2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.
A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells out the issues relatively clearly.
In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican,
"are working to ensure that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals like
Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose sanctions against Russia for its actions
in backing the Syrian government.
In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem is not that Russia is interfering
with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and
the broader Middle East. The newspaper is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating
military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.
For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents in the political establishment
is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class, which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world
a new and catastrophic world war.
"False flag" operation charges for various "hacks" and "dossiers" now have additional validity. The DNC hack is the most prominent
of them.
Notable quotes:
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House. ..."
"... "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. ..."
"... In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential. ..."
"... Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents. ..."
"... This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena. ..."
"... The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. ..."
So many of you are triggered to the point of feverish insanity. What sort of subhuman will you become when Trump is vindicated
from all Russian collusion claims and the DOJ starts tossing faggots into dank prison cells for ginning up fake intelligence reports
to take down a President? Paul Sperry from the NY Post is out with a report tonight, stating the Senate is about to ramp up their
efforts in investigating the birthplace of the debunked Trump-Russian dossier, the one thar claimed germophobe Trump enjoyed getting
urinated on by Russian hookers. For democrats, this might lead to a Mortal Kombat fatality move if implicated. Criminal charges might
rain fire upon them -- like the second coming of Jesus. Many of you still believe said dossier was, in fact, correct. To those people,
dare I say, prove it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer
questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election
and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.
What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former
Wall Street Journal investigative reporters." But congressional sources say it's actually an opposition-research group for Democrat
s, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda. "These weren't mercenaries
or hired guns," a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. "These guys had a vested personal and ideological
interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified
Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS
to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential
campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and
partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election
Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies
bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond
to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential.
Both partners of Fusion GPS have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch a former Journal bureau chief in Mexico City, married to a Mexican
woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. His partner, Thomas Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican
business magazine. Perhaps we should now investigate the Democrats' ties to Mexico?
Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department,
including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing
the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice
inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat
activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the
FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents.
Criminal at Large Loretta Lynch also had a DOJ tax payer slush fund to fund Political Leftists groups.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to
immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State Department and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed, leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia
and Albania. According to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros' Open
Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.
As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia, and other Soros-linked
organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.
Why this, when Clinton committed multiple felonies with her private server conducting state department pay-to-play business
for Clinton Foundation cash?
This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through
that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena.
The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense
to felonies. Etc.
The dossier is not and was not a side show, it was a deliberate creation that failed. I hope all of these cocksuckers have
their assets seized and go to jail ASAP --
I completely agree with Barnes on this one https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY
Most of you are not any where near pissed off enough and you should be -- No wonder nothing much gets done and we end up with
shit like this in our government when people are so fucking apathetic and acquiescent. We should all be livid and demand accountability
or we certainly won't get it --
Yes the fusion centers nationwide are all part of the Phoenix project brought to us by CIA and in more recent times the invention
of DHS and all the other control mechanisms created here in USA today. The Phoenix project has morphed into the playbook of all
these chicken shit worthless wars that are really just corp control and political control mechanisms for the insane psychopaths
and sociopaths that have dominated Amercian governemnt for a very long time. The terrorism was a creation of these same people
to be used as a tool and controlled. BHOs crew put it all on steroids for all of us to see and in a perverse way that is a very
good thing indeed -- At least now many Americans see some of it. Americans are very slow to comprehend even their own demise.
All of the government agencies are well past out of control, not just the spooks. Look at what IRS did and so far giot away
with ? They also need to be prosecuted and dealt with severely, but they won't unless we demand such and raise hell about all
of it --
So the entire DC Ruling Class is assembled in a circular firing squad, each faction investigating the other and threatening
long prison sentences for all playerswhile the rest of America sits in mortified silence... real Banana Republic stuff... much
of this overlaid with assassination talk, impeachment and vicious propaganda...
Meanwhile the ROW must be amused to watch the Pax Americana Empire self-immolate.
Glenn R. Simpson is FUSION 's President and Managing Partner. Simpson has over 20 years of experience in research and investigations,
including 14 years with The Wall Street Journal as the Washington bureau's lead investigative reporter. Since entering the commercial
intelligence field in early 2009, he has managed complex projects in the US, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
Simpson specializes in the banking and securities sectors. He is a seasoned expert on the relationship between government and
business and in particular in financial regulation, and is well known in the capital's financial policymaking, regulatory and
enforcement communities. For his articles in The Wall Street Journal and more recently for private clients, he has analyzed numerous
multinational corporations including difficult international subjects such as banks in the Middle East. He is well versed in the
arcana of tax havens, offshore banking, and securities and accounting fraud. He is also in expert in political influence and is
widely known among Washington's top lobbyists, lawyers, journalists and lawmakers.
In addition to his long tenure in Washington, Simpson was stationed for three years in Brussels. There he developed strong
knowledge of European business practices and structures as well as many contacts in the corporate world and media. His recent
research work includes a matter resulting in a significant win for a major government contractor, the exposure of political corruption
in Latin America and the exposure of a case of securities fraud in the UK. In December 2010, his nearly two-year investigation
of a prominent family ended in a favorable client verdict worth over $70 million.
Simpson is a recipient of numerous awards for his articles, speaks frequently in academic fora and has appeared on many broadcast
news programs including CNN, Nightline, Jim Lehrer NewsHour and the BBC. He is the co-author (with Larry J. Sabato) of the book,
Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books/Random House, 1996).
Peter R. Fritsch is a FUSION Partner and Project Leader. Fritsch is a multilingual investigator, writer and manager with 24
years of experience on four continents. As a reporter and bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, he led and participated in
Pulitzer Prize-nominated investigations from Mexico, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Brussels and Washington, DC. He founded the WSJ's
Sao Paulo bureau in 1997.
Fritsch has written widely on the global petroleum industry, guided a global team investigating the oil and natural resource
industries for the WSJ, and has run top caliber corporate coverage around the world. He enjoys a large network of contacts in
business, media and politics in Latin America, Asia and Europe.
His U.S. bases have included Houston, Boston and New York. While based in Singapore, he worked extensively in important emerging
markets like Vietnam, Indonesia and India and oversaw newsgathering across South and Southeast Asia.
Most recently, Fritsch led the WSJ's national security and foreign affairs coverage in Washington, DC. In addition to spearheading
coverage of the Pentagon and intelligence community, he has reported extensively on Iran's efforts to evade nuclear sanctions.
Fritsch's work has been recognized with several industry awards. His investigation of a Mexican corporate executive ended in
the executive's eventual prosecution by Mexican authorities. He was among the first to sound the alarm regarding a multi-billion
dollar Ponzi scheme in the Caribbean. His work in Europe included major terror finance and corporate bribery investigations.
Benjamin S. Schmidt is FUSION 's Managing Director. Schmidt is a former government intelligence analyst. Most recently, he
served as Team Lead in the Middle East and Europe office of the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Over 7 years at Treasury, Schmidt ran complex transnational cases involving banking and other forms of financial activity.
His work was often included in the President's Daily Brief and used to guide policy decisions with global ramifications.
Schmidt has worked extensively with Middle East governments and is schooled in identifying and mapping financial networks.
He has wide knowledge of financial regulation, international monetary transfer systems and open-source corporate research. At
Treasury, he collaborated with the intelligence community, regulators, policymakers and foreign partners to design economic sanctions
programs, and has wide knowledge of sanctions laws.
Ben has served as a mentor to a cadre of junior Treasury investigators, instructing his partners in the art of transnational
discovery. He is especially adept at devising databases and customized technological solutions to research problems. He is the
recipient of several prestigious internal awards for his work and holds an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at
the University of Maryland.
Funny you ask, but when the FBI doesn't cooperate with a congressional inquiry, their boss should fire them!
THE PRESIDENT is the FBI's boss!
He should immediately fire any FBI official who refuses to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Same for the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all the other Executive branches of Government. The congress holds the purse, but the President
is the person who ultimately holds oversight over these rogue branches of Government.
What the hell is he waiting for, Isn't "Your Fired" part of the mans DNA, did he not promise to drain this swamp?
A top U.S. missile and chemical weapons expert has
documented for months
that the Syrian government did not carry out a chemical weapons attack against civilians, and that
contrary claims by the
Trump White House,
French intelligence services, the
New York Times,
CNN and other "mainstream" sources are wrong and worthless propaganda.
Former top military and intelligence officials – including
many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said
that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the stories of the Mai
Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon
and Bush administrations' war-fighting tactics –
reported yesterday in the large German publication Weld that U.S. military officials tried to
tell Trump that a chemical weapons attack never occurred at all:
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent
attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had
found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon .
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on
April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the
attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians
days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate
all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
***
In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of
his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region
who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun . I
was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications,
immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4
In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S.
and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and
target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians
speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS
surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success and importance
can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the
high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.
Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and
from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS
plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.
***
A high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building . Russian intelligence
depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center .
***
A senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in
the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me [that] the basement was used as storage
for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the
bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor
above.
***
One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that
any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned
not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA "They
were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist
meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and
Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate.
***
Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American
command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the
high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked,"
the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps,
Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian
Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely
share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with
the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given
the highest possible score inside the American community.
***
"This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone
involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear like a regular
500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There
would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives
designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That
is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why
produce a weapon that people can run away from?"
The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage
Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian
bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that
began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other
goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes
close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself
killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides . There is
no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by
the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead,
and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins Sans Frontičres,
treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that "eight patients
showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which
are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds." MSF also
visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there "smelled of bleach,
suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine." In other words, evidence suggested that there
was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case
if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has
no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however,
consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates
used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.
***
The adviser said "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have
intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say:
'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria."
***
"What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve
gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's
strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and
Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would
do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"
***
Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus
to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners
then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport
or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with
it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,' " the adviser said.
" The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from
which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political
suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled
United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013
by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons
depots.
At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than a little
rattled : "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children were or
how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one
would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people . But
you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted
to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber
had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead .
Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons
attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a
less destructive bombing run.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are
furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian
government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And
see this .
Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 sarin attack in Syria, was also blamed by the U.S.
on the Syrian government. However, the United Nations' report on the attack did
NOT blame the government, and the U.N.'s
human rights investigator
accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack. Moreover,
high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels
in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government to provide an excuse for regime change.
And Seymour Hersh
reported that high-level American sources tell him that the
Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official,
who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice
by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'
And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria
as a justification for war was
leaked and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic.
There is one solution to the deceptive, destructive actions of the U.S. military-industrial
complex:
The Treaty to Uphold Sovereignty and Peace
I. No nation shall openly advocate or take covert action to bring about regime change in any
other nation.
II. No nation shall maintain military bases or any other occupying military or police force
in any other nation.
III. No nation shall sell or provide weapons of war to any other nation's government or to
groups in any other nation.
IV. No nation shall sell or provide radioactive materials, including plutonium and uranium,
to any other nation's government or to groups in any other nation.
V. No nation shall attack or in any way undermine the currency of any other nation.
Comes to mind, treaty signed by all of Western powers, not to use war as policy:
As Secretary of State (1925-29), Frank B. Kellogg negotiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928),
for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize (Nobel Peace Prize to US Secretary of State), and
shifted foreign policy away from interventionism.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf
B. The "law of war"
is the "customary and treaty law applicable to the conduct of .... Romans: formalized laws and
procedures that made the use of force an act of ...... for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument
of National Policy (Kellogg-.
Yeah, but Ivanka was moved by the virtuous White Helmet's propaganda video of that "BEAUTIFUL
LITTLE BABY". Trump really disappointed a lot of us with that stupid move.
Little did we know at the time of this recording just how accurate our guest's comments would
become. On Episode #179 of the SUNDAY WIRE, host Patrick Henningsen speaks to author and global affairs
analyst, F. William Engdahl, to discuss his recent article about the new US-Israeli oil wars in the
Golan Heights in Syria and how this is connected to the West's hidden agenda to create "Safe Zones"
in Syria. In prophetic fashion, Engdahl then goes on to describe Donald Trump as a tool of establishment,
placed into the US presidency by America's Deep State – in order to fast-track a destructive geopolitical
agenda. NOTE: This interview was recorded 5 days before the US missile strikes on Syria More @21WIRE:
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant
to be. ..."
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was
meant to be.
David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders
to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that
any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign
and the Russians."
Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday
he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also
publicly stated .
That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated
contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .
Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign
colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####
This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump
is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle
is just too good to let go.
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence.
Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west
to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and
that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere.
Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open;
a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it
looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being
lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.
This is a warning to several prominent commenters of this blog: it is quite possible that Faustian
bargain of alliance with the deep state to depose Trump might backfire and produce completely
opposite result -- strong and durable alliance of Trump and the deep state on the basis of the
same model that existed from 2003 -- inverted totalitarism introduced by Bush II. In this case
you can kiss hopes not only for impeachment, but also for 2020 reversal goodbye.
Many "never-Trumpers" see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope
to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to
subvert constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a
June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized
factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump
initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans,
and mass surveillance."
Inverted totalitarism is completely compatible with Trump_vs_deep_state ("bastard neoliberlaism"):
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system
in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year
of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance
is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government
ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to
the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors.
However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now
has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.
No it is not possible, the Republican Party in D.C. is wholly owned by Daddy Big Bucks and Trump
supporters do not see it, in fact they see the opposite b/c that's what he tweets and says when he
stands before a microphone.
His behavior however tells the real story which is 'destroy the Federal Safety Net and other protections
of the 99% as much and as fast as possible while I'm in office.'
Trump voters were taken for a ride. He proved to be even worse than Obama as for "bait and switch"
propensity.
Also while there was rumors, now it is an established fact that he is a vain and mediocre politician,
inclined to theatrical gestures like his Tomahawk missile attack after a primitive "false flag"
operation by Syria rebels.
"... Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed. ..."
"... What the choice of Mr. Price suggests is that the Trump administration is, in fact, ready to see millions lose insurance. And many of those losers will be Trump supporters. ..."
Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength
of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing
economy and society. And they're about to get their reward - the same reward that,
throughout Mr. Trump's career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions.
Think Trump University.
Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.
The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of
pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most
important story of the week - seriously, people, stop focusing on Trump Twitter - was
the
selection of Tom Price,
an ardent opponent of Obamacare and advocate of Medicare
privatization, as secretary of health and human services. This choice probably means
that the Affordable Care Act is doomed - and Mr. Trump's most enthusiastic supporters
will be among the biggest losers.
The first thing you need to understand here is that Republican talk of "repeal and
replace" has always been a fraud. The G.O.P. has spent six years claiming that it
will come up with a replacement for Obamacare any day now; the reason it hasn't
delivered is that it can't.
Obamacare looks the way it does because it has to: You can't cover Americans with
pre-existing conditions without requiring healthy people to sign up, and you can't do
that without subsidies to make insurance affordable.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Any replacement will either look a lot like Obamacare, or take insurance away from
millions who desperately need it.
What the choice of Mr. Price suggests is that the Trump administration is, in fact,
ready to see millions lose insurance. And many of those losers will be Trump
supporters.
You can see why by looking at Census data from 2013 to 2015, which show the impact of
the full implementation of Obamacare. Over that period, the number of uninsured
Americans
dropped by 13 million
; whites without a college degree, who voted Trump by around
two
to one
, accounted for about eight million of that decline. So we're probably
looking at more than five million Trump supporters, many of whom have chronic health
problems and recently got health insurance for the first time, who just voted to make
their lives nastier, more brutish, and shorter.
Why did they do it? They may not have realized that their coverage was at stake -
over the course of the campaign, the news media barely covered policy at all. Or they
may have believed Mr. Trump's assurances that he would replace Obamacare with
something great.
Either way, they're about to receive a rude awakening, which will get even worse once
Republicans push ahead with their plans to end Medicare as we know it, which seem to
be on even though the president-elect had promised specifically that he would do no
such thing.
And just in case you're wondering, no, Mr. Trump can't bring back the manufacturing
jobs that have been lost over the past few decades. Those jobs were lost mainly to
technological change, not imports, and they aren't coming back.
There will be nothing to offset the harm workers suffer when Republicans rip up the
safety net.
Will there be a political backlash, a surge of buyer's remorse? Maybe. Certainly
Democrats will be well advised to hammer Mr. Trump's betrayal of the working class
nonstop. But we do need to consider the tactics that he will use to obscure the scope
of his betrayal.
One tactic, which we've already seen with this week's ostentatious announcement of a
deal to keep some Carrier jobs in America, will be to distract the nation with
bright, shiny, trivial objects. True, this tactic will work only if news coverage is
both gullible and innumerate.
No, Mr. Trump didn't "stand up" to Carrier - he seems to have offered it a bribe. And
we're talking about a thousand jobs in a huge economy; at the rate of one
Carrier-size deal a week, it would take Mr. Trump 30 years to save as many jobs as
President Obama did with the
auto bailout
; it would take him a century to make up for the overall loss of
manufacturing jobs just since 2000.
But judging from the coverage of the deal so far, assuming that the news media will
be gullible and innumerate seems like a good bet.
And if and when the reality that workers are losing ground starts to sink in, I worry
that the Trumpists will do what authoritarian governments often do to change the
subject away from poor performance: go find an enemy.
Remember what I said about Trump Twitter. Even as he took a big step toward taking
health insurance away from millions, Mr. Trump started ranting about taking
citizenship away from flag-burners. This was not a coincidence.
The point is to keep your eye on what's important. Millions of Americans have just
been sucker-punched. They just don't know it yet.
"... In a land that's released so much plutocratic money into politics that it's buried Washington in Koch brothers dollars , in a country where inequality has in recent years hit historic highs , Donald Trump seems to have been our own El Dorado (or perhaps El Mar-a-Lago). ..."
"... He's the destination toward which this country has evidently been traveling since, in 1991, the Soviet Union imploded and the United States, in all its triumphalist glory, became the "sole superpower" on planet Earth. ..."
"... If anything, Trump's ascendancy should have been the equivalent of a klieg light illuminating our recent American journey. His rise to well, whatever it is has lit up the highway that brought us here in a new way and, in the spirit of his coming infrastructure program for America, it turns out to have been a private toll road that wound through a landscape of Potemkin villages en route to the Oval Office. ..."
"... America's War for the Greater Middle East ..."
In an age of billionaires, whether the voters who
elected him thought that he was the one who could do what was needed in the
nation's capital or were just giving the finger to Washington, the effect
was, as Donald Trump might say, of "
historic
significance
." His golf courses, hotels, properties of every sort are
thriving and the money from them pouring into his
family's
coffers.
His Mar-a-Lago club
doubled
its membership fee after he was elected; the new Trump hotel in
Washington has become a notorious
hotspot
for foreign diplomats eager to curry favor with the
administration; and so it
goes
in the new America. Already three lawsuits have been filed - by
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (a
watchdog outfit
), the
attorneys general
of Maryland and Washington D.C., and
200
Democratic congressional representatives - challenging the president
for breaching the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Investigations of
presidential
obstruction of justice
and possibly even
abuse of power
are evidently underway (to the accompaniment of
voluminous tweets
by you know who), and the president has been
lawyering up
bigly, as has
Vice President Pence
and just about everyone else in sight, including
the president's personal lawyer who now
has a lawyer
of his own.
President Trump has, in fact, been filling in
his roster of personal lawyers far more effectively than he's been able to
fill
basic posts
in his government.
And speaking of historic significance,
around him is the
richest crew
ever to serve in a cabinet, the sort of plutocratic A-team
that gives government of, by, and for the 1% genuine meaning. Now tell me,
if this isn't a classic only-in-America story, what is? Okay, maybe it's not
classic classic, not unless you go back to the
Gilded Age
of the nineteenth century. It's certainly not the version of
American promise that was in the high-school history books of my youth, but
if it isn't
the
twenty-first-century version of the American story,
then what is?
In a land that's
released
so much plutocratic money into politics that it's buried
Washington in
Koch brothers dollars
, in a country where inequality has in recent years
hit
historic highs
, Donald Trump seems to have been our own El Dorado (or
perhaps El Mar-a-Lago).
He's the destination toward which this country has
evidently been traveling since, in 1991, the Soviet Union imploded and the
United States, in all its triumphalist glory, became the "sole superpower"
on planet Earth.
If anything, Trump's ascendancy should
have been the equivalent of a klieg light illuminating our recent American
journey. His rise to well, whatever it is has lit up the highway that
brought us here in a new way and, in the spirit of his coming
infrastructure program
for America, it turns out to have been a private
toll road that wound through a landscape of Potemkin villages en route to
the Oval Office.
One
thing's for sure: wherever we've landed, it certainly isn't where the "
end
of history
" crowd of the last years of the previous century thought we'd
be when the historians finally stopped typing and "liberal Democracy"
reigned supreme.
With
that in mind, join Andrew Bacevich,
TomDispatch
regular
and author of
America's War for the Greater Middle East
, in considering just how,
at this moment, historians should start reimagining our American age amid
the rubble of our previous versions of history.
Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs committees,
has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in
Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit
U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms
or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.
Gabbard's
"Stop Arming Terrorists Act" challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the
conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama
administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and
non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration
began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups-meaning
they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.
That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative,
has actually helped build up al Qaeda's Syrian franchise
al Nusra Front into the
dominant threat to Assad.
The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian
influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy's history.
The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed
to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist
affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to
the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the
heart of the Middle East.
The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar
al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies-Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar-to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined
to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons to the rebels,
according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.
Obama refused to provide arms to the opposition,
but he agreed to provide covert U.S. logistical help i n carrying out a campaign of military
assistance to arm opposition groups. CIA involvement in the arming of anti-Assad forces began with
arranging for the shipment of weapons from the stocks of the Gaddafi regime that had been stored
in Benghazi. CIA-controlled firms shipped the weapons from the military port of Benghazi to two small
ports in Syria using former U.S. military personnel to manage the logistics, as investigative reporter
Sy Hersh detailed in 2014 . The funding for the program came mainly from the Saudis.
A declassified October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report revealed that the shipment in
late August 2012 had included 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along
with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers,
it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo. That suggests a total payload of up
to 250 tons of weapons per shipment. Even if the CIA had organized only one shipment per month, the
arms shipments would have totaled 2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011
through August 2012. More likely it was a multiple of that figure.
The CIA's covert arms shipments from Libya came to an abrupt halt in September 2012 when Libyan
militants attacked and burned the embassy annex in Benghazi that had been used to support the operation.
By then, however, a much larger channel for arming anti-government forces was opening up. The CIA
put the Saudis in touch with a senior Croatian official
who had offered to sell large quantities of arms left over from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.
And the CIA
helped them shop for weapons from arms dealers and governments in several other former Soviet
bloc countries.
Flush with weapons acquired from both the CIA Libya program and from the Croatians, the Saudis
and Qataris dramatically increased the number of flights by military cargo planes to Turkey in December
2012 and continued that intensive pace for the next two and a half months. The New York Times
reported a total 160 such flights through mid-March 2013. The most common cargo plane in use
in the Gulf, the Ilyushin
IL-76 , can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo on a flight, which would indicate that as much as
8,000 tons of weapons poured across the Turkish border into Syria just in late 2012 and in 2013.
One U.S. official called the new level of arms deliveries to Syrian rebels a "cataract of weaponry."
And a year-long investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project revealed that the Saudis were intent on building up a powerful
conventional army in Syria. The "end-use certificate" for weapons purchased from an arms company
in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2013
includes 500
Soviet-designed PG-7VR rocket launchers that can penetrate even heavily-armored tanks, along with
two million rounds; 50 Konkurs anti-tank missile launchers and 500 missiles, 50 anti-aircraft guns
mounted on armored vehicles, 10,000 fragmentation rounds for OG-7 rocket launchers capable of piercing
heavy body armor; four truck-mounted BM-21 GRAD multiple rocket launchers, each of which fires 40
rockets at a time with a range of 12 to 19 miles, along with 20,000 GRAD rockets.
The end user document for
another Saudi order
from the same Serbian company listed 300 tanks, 2,000 RPG launchers, and 16,500 other rocket
launchers, one million rounds for ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and 315 million cartridges for various
other guns.
Those two purchases were
only a fraction of the totality of the arms obtained by the Saudis over the next few years from
eight Balkan nations. Investigators found that the Saudis made their biggest arms deals with former
Soviet bloc states in 2015, and that the weapons included many that had just come off factory production
lines. Nearly 40 percent of the arms the Saudis purchased from those countries, moreover, still had
not been delivered by early 2017. So the Saudis had already contracted for enough weaponry to keep
a large-scale conventional war in Syria going for several more years.
By far the most consequential single Saudi arms purchase was not from the Balkans, however, but
from the United States. It was the December 2013
U.S. sale of 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Saudis at a cost of about $1 billion-the result
of Obama's decision earlier that year to reverse his ban on lethal assistance to anti-Assad armed
groups. The Saudis had agreed, moreover, that those anti-tank missiles would be doled out to Syrian
groups only at U.S. discretion. The TOW missiles began to arrive in Syria in 2014 and soon had
a major impact on the military balance.
This flood of weapons into Syria, along with the entry of 20,000 foreign fighters into the country-primarily
through Turkey-largely defined the nature of the conflict. These armaments helped make al Qaeda's
Syrian franchise, al Nusra Front (now renamed Tahrir al-Sham or Levant Liberation Organization) and
its close allies by far the most powerful anti-Assad forces in Syria-
and gave rise to the Islamic State .
By late 2012, it became clear to U.S. officials that the largest share of the arms that began
flowing into Syria early in the year were going to the rapidly growing al Qaeda presence in the country.
In October 2012, U.S.
officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most"
of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance
during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian
franchise, al Nusra.
Al Nusra Front and its allies became the main recipients of the weapons because the Saudis, Turks,
and Qataris wanted the arms to go to the military units that were most successful in attacking government
targets. And by the summer of 2012, al Nusra Front, buttressed by the thousands of foreign jihadists
pouring into the country across the Turkish border, was already
taking the lead in attacks on the Syrian government in coordination with "Free Syrian Army" brigades.
In November and December 2012, al Nusra Front began establishing formal "joint operations rooms"
with those calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" on several battlefronts, as Charles Lister chronicles
in his book The Syrian Jihad . One such commander favored by Washington was Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a former Syrian
army officer who headed something called the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council. Ambassador Robert
Ford, who continued to hold that position even after he had been withdrawn from Syria,
publicly visited Oqaidi
in May 2013 to express U.S. support for him and the FSA.
But Oqaidi and his troops were junior partners in a coalition in Aleppo in which al Nusra was
by far the strongest element. That reality is clearly
reflected in a video in
which Oqaidi describes his good relations with officials of the "Islamic State" and is shown joining
the main jihadist commander in the Aleppo region celebrating the capture of the Syrian government's
Menagh Air Base in September 2013.
By early 2013, in fact, the "Free Syrian Army," which had never actually been a military organization
with any troops, had ceased to have any real significance in the Syria conflict. New anti-Assad armed
groups had stopped using the name even as a "brand" to identify themselves, as a leading specialist
on the
conflict
observed.
So, when weapons from Turkey arrived at the various battlefronts, it was understood by all the
non-jihadist groups that they would be shared with al Nusra Front and its close allies.
A report by McClatchy in early 2013, on a town in north central Syria, showed how the military
arrangements between al Nusra and those brigades calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" governed the
distribution of weapons. One of those units, the Victory Brigade, had participated in a "joint operations
room" with al Qaeda's most important military ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a successful attack on a strategic
town a few weeks earlier. A visiting reporter watched that brigade and Ahrar al Sham show off new
sophisticated weapons that included Russian-made RPG27 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled anti-tank
grenades and RG6 grenade launchers.
When asked if the Victory Brigade had shared its new weapons with Ahrar al Sham, the latter's
spokesman responded, "Of course they share their weapons with us. We fight together."
Turkey and Qatar consciously chose al Qaeda and its closest ally, Ahrar al Sham, as the recipients
of weapons systems. In late 2013 and early 2014, several truckloads of arms bound for the province
of Hatay, just south of the Turkish border, were intercepted by Turkish police. They had Turkish
intelligence personnel on board,
according to later Turkish police court testimony . The province was controlled by Ahrar al Sham.
In fact Turkey soon began to treat Ahrar al Sham as its primary client in Syria, according to
Faysal Itani , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.
A Qatari intelligence operative who had been involved in shipping arms to extremist groups in
Libya was a key figure in directing the flow of arms from Turkey into Syria. An Arab intelligence
source familiar with the discussions among the external suppliers near the Syrian border in Turkey
during those years told the Washington Post's
David Ignatius that when one of the participants warned that the outside powers were building
up the jihadists while the non-Islamist groups were withering away, the Qatari operative responded,
"I will send weapons to al Qaeda if it will help."
The Qataris did funnel arms to both al Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham, according to a
Middle Eastern diplomatic source. The Obama administration's
National Security Council staff proposed in 2013 that the United States signal U.S. displeasure
with Qatar over its arming of extremists in both Syria and Libya by withdrawing a squadron of fighter
planes from the U.S. airbase at al-Udeid, Qatar. The Pentagon vetoed that mild form of pressure,
however, to protect its access to its base in Qatar.
President Obama himself confronted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his government's support
for the jihadists at a private White House dinner in May 2013, as recounted by Hersh. "We know what
you're doing with the radicals in Syria," he quotes Obama as saying to Erdogan.
The administration addressed Turkey's cooperation with the al Nusra publicly, however, only fleetingly
in late 2014. Shortly after leaving Ankara, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from
2011 through mid-2014,
told The Daily Telegraph of London that Turkey had "worked with groups, frankly, for a
period, including al Nusra."
The closest Washington came to a public reprimand of its allies over the arming of terrorists
in Syria was when Vice President Joe Biden criticized their role in October 2014.
In impromptu remarks at Harvard University's Kennedy School, Biden complained that "our biggest
problem is our allies." The forces they had supplied with arms, he said, were "al Nusra and al Qaeda
and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."
Biden quickly apologized
for the remarks, explaining that he didn't mean that U.S. allies had deliberately helped the
jihadists. But Ambassador Ford confirmed his complaint,
telling BBC , "What
Biden said about the allies aggravating the problem of extremism is true."
In June 2013 Obama
approved the first direct U.S. lethal military aid to rebel brigades that had been vetted by
the CIA By spring 2014, the U.S.-made BGM-71E anti-tank missiles from the 15,000 transferred to
the Saudis
began to appear in the hands of selected anti-Assad groups. But the CIA imposed the condition
that the group receiving them would not cooperate with the al Nusra Front or its allies.
That condition implied that Washington was supplying military groups that were strong enough to
maintain their independence from al Nusra Front. But the groups on the CIA's list of vetted "relatively
moderate" armed groups were all highly vulnerable to takeover by the al Qaeda affiliate. In November
2014, al Nusra Front troops struck the two strongest CIA-supported armed groups, Harakat Hazm and
the Syrian Revolutionary Front on successive days and seized their heavy weapons, including both
TOW anti-tank missiles and GRAD rockets.
In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly
showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. And in March
2016, al Nusra Front troops
attacked the headquarters of the 13th Division in northwestern Idlib province and seized all
of its TOW missiles. Later that month, al Nusra Front
released a video of its troops using the TOW missiles it had captured.
But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse. Along with
its close ally Ahrar al Sham, the terrorist organization
began planning
for a campaign to take complete control of Idlib province in the winter of 2014-15. Abandoning
any pretense of distance from al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked with al Nusra on the
creation of a new military formation for Idlib called the "Army of Conquest," consisting of the al
Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
provided more weapons for the campaign, while Turkey
facilitated their passage . On March 28, just four days after launching the campaign, the Army
of Conquest successfully gained control of Idlib City.
The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of
the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria
in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate
in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province.
According to Lister
, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and
other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13,
did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them
off.
As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers,
and they now
used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a
new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate"
groups and the al Nusra Front.
The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed
a new command called Fateh Halab ("Aleppo Conquest") with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which
were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren't cooperating with
al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the
command. But as the report on the new command
clearly implied , this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to
its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.
The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra
Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to
fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely
responsible for having extended al Qaeda's power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The
CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America's stated counter-terrorism
mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard's
legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation
of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.
Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism.
He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran
Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).
America has been doing the same thing in Syria that it did in Afghanistan in the 80s when they
armed and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahideen to create Al Qaeda and look what that led to 9/11
only this time their criminal actions of arming Jihadists have led to terrorist attacks in Europe.
I think the largest problem with US Foreign Policy is we are rather ignorant of any aspect of
the Middle East or its politics even after all that time in Iraq. It is almost embarrassing the
fact we are a society that seem to reward and encourage ignorance at all levels of it. At one
point in time many politicians lacked formal education yet they were all highly self educated.
Lincoln was a self trained lawyer from a humble background. I
Ignorance is not a virtue unless you are Orwellian in thought.
"ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative" – That
is the smartest insight of this story. US policy in the region strongly favors relatively secular
dictators. Democracy is seen as a total threat to "stability," brutal US-allied regimes. The US
should either stop meddling, or genuinely support democratic reform, but not lie to the American
people by meddling in the name of democracy.
Here is an excerpt from Tulsi Gabbard's Press release.
Why don't you publish it?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS,
we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups
with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i]
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
Could it get much worse? American wars in the Middle East have been a total disaster. For a while
it looked as if Trump might be the game changer, someone who would finally pull us out. Instead,
the situation is getting worse. ISIS is spreading like a cancer in Europe, with a flood of refugees
changing the character of Europe permanently perhaps. Meanwhile, the non-Islamist groups were
withering away" according to this article, because the US of all people are arming the terrorists.
Geez, I wonder if that makes the US a terrorist nation? (Sadly we recently had a choice of partnering
with Russia to wipe out ISIS, but we decided to play the sinister game of power politics instead.
Clearly the Turks, Saudis other Sunis have been aiding and abetting ISIS in various ways. We should
switch allegiance to Russia and Iran, IMO.)
So, the State Department's objective in the Middle East is to create a Sunnistan between the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers controlled by radical Sunni Islamists of whatever name they chose to call
themselves.
It seems Israel has signed off on this.
It also seems the Russians are saying "fine." But still the war goes on. Why?
Is it absolutely necessary that Syria be destroyed as well?
Why; is it because of Iran and it's puppets the rump of Iraq east of the Euphrates and Syria?
If this is the final outcome envisioned of what possible relevance is Afghanistan?
It would be wonderful to see some follow-on reporting by Gareth Porter. For example, on whether
there was any relation between Gen. Flynn's apparent opposition to this 'strategy' and the campaign
to get him out of the White House. Yeah, I know. He spoke with the Russian ambassador. Besides
that.
Every terrorist attack, every child that is killed in the UK and Europe, is just a case of terrorism
coming home, pigeons coming home to roost. What goes around comes around. It would be no more
than justice if London/ Paris/ Brussels, let alone Riyadh and Doha, one day looked like Damascus
does today. We have armed/ bankrolled/ trained this filth. They always bite the hand that feeds
them.
Yes. We know. The whole reason I voted for Trump, is because he looked as though he would end
this conflict. But it didn't happen. And what did I really expect? No morality, no promise is
solid.
We should have banned travel and withdrawn every US and NATO force from the area, down to the
last rifle. We are weakened from years of fighting and our enemies know it.
It's time we elected a non-rich, non-politician, common man to the office of President. Somebody
with outstanding morality and nothing to lose.
Trump doesn't seem to be delivering what I want. And he's not the leader I want.
I know what the leader I'm looking for is like. Wherever this man is, it's time he step forward.
If he doesn't, then I will, but chances are it will be too late by the time I am ready. So how
about one of millions of experienced adults show up for once. I'm tired of living my life, ruled
by lesser men. Give me somebody to support, for God's sake.
But the campaign is long over. While many of Mr. Trump's allies and supporters are still reluctant to blame Russia, the American
intelligence community has said that Russian interference is a fact, not an opinion. Mr. Trump's strategy of muddying his position
has let the Russia issue grow
, gumming up the gears in his administration's efforts to move forward with major legislation and decisions.
"Geopolitically, it touches everything," Mr. DuHaime said.
Officials in a number of states have in the meantime complained that the White House has done little to try to safeguard the 2018
and 2020 elections against potential Russian intrusions, even as evidence grows that there were efforts to tamper with voter rolls
last year.
Through it all, the president's allies continue to see Russia as a boogeyman for Democrats and a rapacious news media, an issue
his core voters think is manufactured.
"He doesn't want to be set by this narrative that the Russians hacked the election when he has to negotiate with Russia, who,
by the way, sits on China's border," said Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide to Mr. Trump. "If Putin adamantly denies that he did
it, it's frankly not an issue to the president."
"... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
"... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
"... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
"... Intelligence Matters ..."
"... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
"... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential
election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different.
As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot
about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters
would have us think.
The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign
against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing
biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House,
as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he
was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before
the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence
agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future
perpetrators to the United States.
The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to
9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After
the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating
than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.
Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid
Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi,
who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time
had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.
The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar
and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted
into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver
licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with
a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of
Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego
office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.
As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans
to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al
Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn
the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on
planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped
crash it into the Pentagon.
While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to
slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had
contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations
prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the
United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."
Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers
effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed
them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.
Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate,
blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him.
Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which
Graham refused to do.
As Graham would later describe in is book
Intelligence Matters, the
FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship
with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts
of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the
public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.
Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI
carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay
any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure,
will likely never be known.
So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility.
The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency,
made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated
to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil
rights leaders.
What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some
semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with
the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the
best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so
is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on
Trump and run him out of office.
As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us,
but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."
Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found
in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions
About 9/11.
Trump won because his position was based on unnecessary war,
non-interventionism, fiscal conservativism and anti-corruption.
He entertained the masses. The race, gender, anti-SJW, and anti-immigration
stuff were simply talking points. None of his policies on these sidelong issues
had teeth.
Rest assured, if Republicans had put in an honest and strong candidate true
to those core issues – they would destroy the Dems because these points appeal
to all voters. Instead Republicans will reflexively say the minorities are
killing them when really its the piss poor leadership that they have installed
in the WH over the last two decades.
God help the world when such smart people (Republicans) resort to being
sucks even when they win.
Trump won .because he promised to curtail immigration and
enforce the law w/r/t illegals.
The Only Answer: An Immigration Moratorium
Sadly, the 'only answer' is a few decades late, and not gonna
happen anyway.
Yes, the Republicans are just as treasonous as the Dems, only
in a slightly different way now and then. Meanwhile, the Endgame
of Diversity is not Diversity. It's dead white people. All of
them.
This is the key quote:
"But, ultimately, it's a question of numbers. The Ruling Class has decided
America's economic future requires non-white immigrants"
Whatever appearances suggest, mass immigration to the US is a non-partisan
issue. Immigration befits ALL elites – whether economically or politically. Its
affects on labour markets is wonderful: downward pressure on wages, increased
unemployment & it's inevitable result on worker desperation. It's win-win &
win. Naturally, Elites have NO exposure to the consequences of importing a
ready made under-class.
However unpalatable it seems, immigration is a tool of class warfare.
It's funny how, in view of their "redistributionist" policies, the Democrats
have consistently presided over even greater concentration of wealth and
inequality of income.
It's almost as if they didn't mean what they say.
Although of course the Clintons are a good example of the beneficial effects
of redistribution. Starting as two virtually bankrupt lawyers, they are now
both multi-millionaires, possibly close to joining the billionaire club.
The first time Tammy Garnes visited a school in Cobb County, 10 years
ago, she left in a hurry. It was just too white.
"I want to surround my children with black people,"
Blacks are racial bigots who prefer the company of their own people, too.
Around 10-12 years ago
60 Minutes
ran a segment about a blacks only
(unofficially) suburban housing development outside of Atlanta and a couple of
schools for professional blacks from other areas of the country. One of the
black female residents who moved in said her son was attending a mostly white
school in the Philadelphia suburbs (and doing well) but that she feared she was
losing her son to white culture. She said wanted her son to have a black
identity and grow up around other blacks.
If whites had done something similar there would have been a nationwide
media generated furor about "white supremacy" (since white privilege wasn't yet
in vogue). It would have been denounced by politicians on both sides of the
aisle and the Cheka, I mean FBI, would have investigated for civil rights
violations. Eventually the all white development would have deemed illegal by
the imperial federal judiciary and forced to integrate since nothing is more
evil and un-American than whites wishing to live together.
"... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of
US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large
we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even
if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
"... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special
services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms
of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe
you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop
of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
"Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "
Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty
toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.
Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing
Central African level of poverty) but still huge.
I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety.
I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.
We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.
When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell
you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's
how I saw it.
I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and
camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible
to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid
of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside,
in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome
of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.
Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing
70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way
that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the
United States. True, isn't it?
Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs
to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct
tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost
the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone,
but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is
this really news to you?
Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going
to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials
interfere in their political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or
attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who
is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate
counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and
other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by
and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And
in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.
Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election,
and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?
Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I
can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information.
And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall
the assassination of President Kennedy.
There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct,
and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia
in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was
it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government
and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed
in those meetings?
Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.
Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?
Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you
think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they
discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?
Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over
the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with
whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister
and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption,
a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in
jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No
one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see
things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.
We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people,
while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement
agencies try to restore order.
I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other
European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling
order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies
and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how
things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect
in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and
to teach us how we should live?
We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner,
in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will
not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.
The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
21/06/2017
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian
meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up
support for war with Russia.
....................
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the
main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a
single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases
like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions
that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions
Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the
conflict between the US and these countries
WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that
would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:
"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our
elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep
concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in
Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the
negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed
between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle
East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election
and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.
The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American
intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost
five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of
the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.
If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr.
Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.
So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.
Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email
accounts of...
Why critique this campaign against Russia
As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it
Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership
Point out the motivation
Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres
Yes the NYT and the WP
Both are working with the deep state
Once called the invisible government
Much as they have in he past
Why I like he color revolution analogy
These media titans are working with the DS
Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US
soldiers' blood to the Balts.
Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!
Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using
any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves
the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.
But Nunes complained on the radio show Monday that Democrats want to look now into accusations that Trump committed obstruction
of justice because, he asserted, the probe so far has turned up "no evidence of collusion" between the president and the Russians.
"Republicans are getting tired of what appears to be investigations without a crime," Nunes said. "If someone doesn't pull a Russian
out of a hat soon," he said, people "have got to question what is going on."
Obama was closely allied with intelligence services. So they now protect him and his close circle.
Notable quotes:
"... Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following: ..."
"... Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request. ..."
Back in April,
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of "the identities
of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team" by Obama's
National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama
administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related
to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years."
Here is the full
letter received from the National Secruity Council:
"Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under
the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after
an administration has left office."
Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar
records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative
thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the
following:
Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf
of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or
the Clinton presidential campaign.
Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign
or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual
acting on behalf of the Russian government.
The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition
team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or
any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response
to any request described in part 1 of this request.
Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of
the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor
Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security
Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.
Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near
future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that
he gets booted from office in 2020. Even better, as
The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at
the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what
happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
OK, so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. All any administration has to do is
obfuscate and delay FOIA requests until it leaves Office, then everything remains sealed for 5
years?
This cannot have been the intention behind the FOIA and it make the adminstration completely
untransparent and unaccountable, which of course irrespective in the case of the Obozo administration,
it always was (despite the fact that this was the self-declared "most transparent administration
ever"). This goes nicely along the ability of members of an old administration to decline to appear
before Congressional hearings even under subpoena.
Oh, and BTW the Presidential Library hasn't even been built yet so where are the records now?
Of course, if it ever does get built on the South side of Chicago (if Chicago still exists by
then) there is a very good chance that it will get burnt down and all its contents destroyed.
That would be convenient wouldn't it?
This completely wreaks of "Banana Republic". What if there is a Court Order; does this still
apply?
"Welp, looks like Elmer Fudd Moving & Storage LLC never delivered the requested documents to
the Obama Bath House Library and Massage Parlor as contracted. We have spoken to our lawyers and
are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the former owners of EFM&S even though they are
now domiciled in the Cayman Islands."
To which prosecutor nmewn says: "Don't bother. The mishandling, transfer, theft, tampering
and/or destruction of government property is still a ten year felony. The simple fact it is admitted
you entrusted that property to EFM&S LLC is all the evidence I need to proceed with the prosecution
so, thanks I guess."
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger
on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to
someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites
are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden
in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold
War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love
for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has "
no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a
dictator , a
war criminal and
tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants
to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would
say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig
leaf.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the
foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not
a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his
finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting
blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like
antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph
Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old
world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started
the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
The audience member explained that as Colbert pressed
Oscar winner Stone - who was promoting his new Vladimir
Putin Showtime series, "The Putin Interviews" - on his
apparent sympathy for the Russian president in spite of
claims about Russian interference in the US election,
Stone, at a disadvantage, tried to shift the talk to
Israel.
The source said they "watched from behind
[their] hands" as Stone said words to the effect of:
"Israel had far more involvement in the US election than
Russia."
The "Platoon" director further challenged Colbert by
saying, "Why don't you ask me about that?" - but we're
told that the host shot back, "I'll ask you about that
when you make a documentary about Israel!"
"... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than
Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to
the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far
more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
"... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more
than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned
to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by
challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby,
most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than
anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state
and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit
scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into
AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral
process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about
to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly
as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission
looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated
the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel
in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert
operations running in the U.S. at that time.
Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish
power vis-ŕ-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got
to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government,
they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."
He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators
from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats
at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests
ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"
It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017
Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way
through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly,
there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything
good for the American people.
During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby.
One bill might actually have
been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors,
most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive,
including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors
out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders voting "no."
And there's more to S.722 than
Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much
of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions
without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring
conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle
East, North Africa, and beyond."
ORDER IT NOW
The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far
outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former
generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have
managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced
western media.
And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House
of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries
in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United
States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of
New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently
enjoys.
Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for
office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs
and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know
that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully
feeds off of.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was
passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State
Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a
uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be
a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there
is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita
Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.
There is also a
Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism
Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill
is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything
relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.
And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution
celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution
was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less
said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has
described himself
as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that
the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any
peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery
exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem
was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies,
but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous
of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and
came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it.
He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
shouted at him for being
a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no
matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the
West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim
is being coordinated with Washington.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.
...Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually
has been committed but people's lives are ruined.
Gingrich said on "This Week" Trump has "a compulsion to counterattack and is very pugnacious" even though that sometimes works
to his detriment.
Gingrich said prosecutors may not find evidence of obstruction against Trump, "but maybe there is going to be perjury. And maybe
there will be – I mean, you go down the list and we have been here before. We watched Comey [when he was deputy attorney general]
appoint [Chicago U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the godfather to Comey's children and Fitzgerald knew there was no crime."
(Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband
Joseph C. Wilson's statements about whether Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Niger, contradicting the Bush administration. The
investigation resulted in Lewis "Scooter" Libby pleading guilty to lying to investigators.)
Gingrich said if there is going to be an investigation into Russian influence, investigators also should look into a speech given
by former President Bill Clinton for which he was paid $500,000 and the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.
who is a registered agent for a Russian bank.
"I'm happy to look at Russia's relationship. I actually think it would be healthy to have congressional hearings on foreign influence
peddling in the U.S. way beyond the Russians. I think that's important for the future of our democracy," Gingrich said.
"No one, and Comey himself said this in his last testimony, no one has suggested that Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding
with the Russians. There's not a bit of evidence he did."
Gingrich said hires by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller indicate he's politicizing the investigation and Comey also should be
investigated, a sentiment echoed by Trump attorney Jay Sekulow on CNN's "
State
of the Union ."
"... One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast. ..."
"... As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive. ..."
"... The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing. ..."
"... New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result. ..."
"... It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases). ..."
"... virtuous ..."
"... When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination. ..."
"... I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics. ..."
"... Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil. ..."
"... No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020. ..."
"... Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about. ..."
"... So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. ..."
"... You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen." ..."
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
There's so much bad history that's been normalized we become numb, and this is an impressive parade of horribles.
By George Washington. Originally published at
his website
The New York Times
characterizes
special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:
Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating
a rare reputation for independence and fairness.
Let's fact-check the Times
Anthrax Frame-Up
Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was
"flawed
and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator
called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case."
The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says
the whole thing was
a sham . He says
that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were "politically motivated communication
embargos from FBI Headquarters".
Moreover, the anthrax investigation head
said that the
FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI's anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower
report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:
(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution
of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence .
Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception
management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt . These efforts included press conferences and highly selective
evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions .
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether
he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone
call made in the U.S.
On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told
the Senate Judiciary Committee:
We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and
future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search .
Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that
up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened,
right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was
said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help
lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not
."
The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated
what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored :
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw
improperly serving hundreds of
thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating
nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs after his own agents warned
against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to
disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later
worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the
case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been
in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and
it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks,
Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about
1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged
more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number
of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of
the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none
turned out to be terrorists .
The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that
was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller
personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side,
so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence
Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11.
In addition, Rowley
says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11,
to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like. The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional
Inquiry into 9/11
confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and
see this ).
Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room
to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry
discovered that an FBI informant had hosted
and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright,
and then hid him in an unknown location . And
see this .
And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate
the 2001 attacks – points out :
Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis
out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep
incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in
their effort.
Conclusion
Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships
the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly investigated
911InsideOut
4,752 views
Published on Aug 30, 2016
After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all
the best facts and evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crimes we witnessed on September
11th, and who ought to be investigated if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
Category
People & Blogs
License
Standard YouTube License
Well of course he's an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of this country, but he has done them for both parties;
hence the 'above the partisan fray' line. You can't be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead bodies for both sides.
One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one.
Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast.
As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.
Driving down his popularity per se won't harm him. Even the elites who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They
need to remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty
by association of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is making Republicans fall in line with the establishment
thus making way for impeachment. It's their only hope and a long shot because the Republicans will be committing suicide.
Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard
or the alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the governing class without respect for party. Not that
he will be allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there's too much money at stake from donors who bought the governing
apparatus fair and square.
Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without
much help from Trump's team. Both parties are under siege, which is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education,
energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.
Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The
policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump's tampering may make them worse at the margins.
The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for
S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.
New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result.
It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something
shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases).
It's going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class might even double down on it; what we need is a virtuous
CEO; like Zuckerberg, for example.
* I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there's a scale issue.
When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest
priority is simply avoiding assassination.
Sometimes he will get on Twitter and say some belligerent stuff, but doesn't he realize that he has the authority to hire and
fire who he wants?
I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish
behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence,
Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact
a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.
Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking
to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.
Right, when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment. But he had to: otherwise
they would never have let him leave the convention with the nomination.
I would have preferred to see him select somebody like Jesse Ventura or Nomi Prins or Alex Jones as veep and let the chips
fall where they may. It's not like he needs the job anyway.
" when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment.".
No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted
Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential
nomination in 2020.
They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with
the Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out of Cleveland still the nominee.
There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping
for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.
People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend
of the People. And yes, the real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.
And most coverups aren't Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent bureaucracy covering its tracks.
Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not "obstruction of justice," it is exposing the
deep state's intense effort to keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the investigation is not obstruction,
but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to it's logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it's agenda. Deep
state's leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.
Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic
things I've ever read about.
Good to see George Washington around these parts again, there's few people as passionate about politics as him!
Here's an interesting run through of mueller's handling of the anthrax investigation, among other things. A fun bit:
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds
from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown
to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on
Hatfill and that he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured
Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta
Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller
/ comey's dogged yet severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.
Hold on had to open another roll to triple layer my tf hat there that's better
If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the legend and backstory to divert attention
Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the
news folks busy with filling the hole between the ads
Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans and boeremag around and associated with him
And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys after most of them had their "matter" dismissed
Mueller is there to keep trump in check the investigation will go on and on and on feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars
to a group of "approved" insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some pdf report before some major sporting
event or just after some massive news story on a thursday
"Bungling" a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to unexpected further investigation
Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and
then arresting them as 'terrorists' in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.
I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.
Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he
wants to. According to Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also pardon anyone, including himself!
The idea that they are independent is a canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been buying.
This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual crime, as opposed to a protracted "Trump won when he shouldn't
have! Evil Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a secret handshake with Trump!" that has yet to
do anything beyond hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And the reason firing the Watergate
special prosecutor was obstruction of justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed by Congress and
therefore really was independent.
To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that
the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis. Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks
from "intelligence officials" are not enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.
"To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges
of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis"
Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the gossip about Trump's actual net worth, perhaps he has
been pegged as one of "us".
Democrats have gone from "Russia did something AND WE HAVE PROOF!" to Maxine Waters admitting they don't even have evidence
that any crime was committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just have 'connect the dots' and find actual
evidence. This is some real presuppositional crap here; this is the type of 'thinking' that liberals are always mocking Creationists
for. Over half of year with no evidence that anything even happened isn't an investigation: it's a fishing expedition.
So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure (golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election
hacking, dirty money, Jared ). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized
ad hoc foreign policy shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign entities. Trump either knew it
since the beginning of their relationship (and either didn't care, or winky-winky greenlighted it), or suborned it when
he later found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to
have any rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a separate issue (and is probably the case where
Trump is concerned, notwithstanding that he'll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting convicted by the Senate).
Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I don't see how it's clear what can have been "obstructed"
or indeed what "justice" might mean. (Rhe "Russian hacking" of votes, for example, is so ludicrous it's pointless to discuss it,
even if around half of Clinton's voters believe it)
On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians,
and The Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as "inconvertibly," I always look adverbs like that.
All I can tell is that great legal minds differ.
What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious about 'Draining the swamp' in Washington – and the
editorial offices at the New York Times!
P.S. I'm still reading Maureen Dowd's The Year of Voting Dangerously . In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue
of sellouts by major Democratic Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it looked like the 2016
election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved
Dowd's job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC's ruthless pursuit of power with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course,
Dowd's prodigious talent as a writer) .
Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They're
duly elected and funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact revenue for the winners. We hold elections
to decide which businesses we want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.
How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations conclude? We haven't done that yet if I recall correctly.
Would Pence be any good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he select a new VP then? (I don't
know the answer to that one either) .
Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may get us there.
Pence was not a very good governor but he'd be celebrated for looking Presidential and not being Trump. He's also way more
conservative and would get far more bills passed.
The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather
than actually succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.
Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker. Instead of giving voters til the next election to make
up their mind, they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election being in the middle of summer instead of Nov
2012, and they lost because a majority of voters didn't like the process.
If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.
Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP
in order to get some cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like Ron Paul one might have thought
there was a good chance he would "drain the swamp". Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are not exactly
"draining the swamp". One couldn't submit to HBO a series script with some general (affectionately lol) known as "Mad Dog" being
the Sec of Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of which Soros is a visible element was not
happy with Trump. It is possible that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different elements of the people
who really decide things fighting. One clue is if damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC and
Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did
the revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value?
FDR said, if it happens in the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you get this kind hall of mirrors
head confusion, then the CIA is at work.
Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to grift. otherwise, there isn't that much difference
betwixt the two. Hillary is straight forward with her "scam." Trump uses Market strategy to con others . Hillary uses whatever
it takes to "get" and "enjoy" Power.
Trump's kind of business "men" hire media who enable the "Right kind" of Calvanism/American "Thinking" which has bought Congress.
These grifters "use" whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price, Everything is for sale to the highest
bidder . outright theft, looting and pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. "Whatever it takes!,"
as someone said.
we could not foresee exactly what kind of "Grifter in Chief" Trump would turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now
'ensnared" Trump as blowback for "stealing" the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part with her morally indignant,
empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she possessed "morals" to begin with.
Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it's all out in the open, which lost her the deplorables'
vote she didn't care about but she needed.
watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how Americans are so easily "led/fooled" by the PR. Goebbels
was just ahead of his time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his "Role," proved how easy it was to "sell' us out to
Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork
for the absolute oligarchy we 'enjoy" courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder Congress we see today.
we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet, for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade
a spade is how we got to this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and Corporate Republicans
need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.
"For the many, not the few" is a belief we need here in America, too. though Americans are still buying the self-hating PR
so-called Leaders Thatcher, St. Reagan sold. the young don't, however, which could promise a hopeful future in England. maybe
Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama destroyed that "Dream" in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very
much.
Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.
Nothing will happen until we get rid of fixed elections. Suppression, kicking voters off the list, gerrymandering, no paper
trail voting machine's. We are screwed.
Mueller also play a notorious role in the Starr Chamber Whitewater witch hunt. Mueller is really truly awful. In some ways
it is satisfying to see all the Republican hacks turn on one another.
"Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a
rare reputation for independence and fairness."
So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
So he was "cultivating a rare reputation" as such?
OK: Does that mean for the NYT that "cultivating a rare reputation for X" is what is it TO BE X?
In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.
(No wonder listening to Putin on Stone's movie is like listening to a different world.)
Like millions of other Americans, Sam believed Trump to be genuine and uncompromising. To the
San Jose Mercury News, however, Sam hinted at a deeper insight, "He's kind of embraced his position,
as you like me or you don't, but I'm not changing. It is almost a professional wrestling mentality
and I have a sympathy for that." So there you have it. Trump has a professional wrestling mindset.
... ... ...
Jesse Ventura, a wrestler turned politician, has repeatedly pointed out the similarity between
American politics and professional wrestling. In 2010, Ventura said, "Politics today is pro wrestling.
It is pro wrestling, and you know what I mean by that? I mean by that that the Dems and Repubs in
front of you [reporters] and in front of the public is going to tell you how they hate each other,
and how they're different, but as soon as the camera is off, in the backroom, they're all going out
together, and they're all buddies cutting deals. It's just like pro wrestling. In front of the public,
we hate each other, we're going to rip our heads off, but in the locker room, we're all friends.
I'm suggesting politics is fake."
In 2016, Ventura told The Atlantic, "Many of these elected officials are just like wrestlers in
the public and then they're the opposite in private. Case in point, do you remember a few years ago
who was some congressman from Florida who voted against every gay bill and it turned out he was gay,
do you remember that? Yeah, so there's a classic example of it. This guy who was gay hid the fact
that he was gay, voted like he hated gays, and so he created a personality that was completely averse
to what he really was. And wrestling's the same way."
Though American politicians are phonies, and American elections are farcically rigged, Americans
continue to rabidly support their favorite political puppet, whether Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Trump
or whoever. Going berserk over each cartoon savior or villain, most Americans don't even know they're
being force-fed lucha libre.
I like your use of color revolution analogy; it enrages liberal interventionists"
Thank you -- But is not an analogy. What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the election, by discrediting already discredited neoliberal establishment
(Although, as any patriotic American, I strongly doubt they can tamper as well as we can.)
But the set of steps we observed was the plot to appoint a Special Prosecutor, who later is expected to sink Trump. After the
Special Prosecutor was appointed Russia changes does not matter, and more "elastic" charge of "obstruction of justice" can be
used instead.
Also note the heavy participation of two heads of intelligence agencies (Clapper and Brennan) and State Department officials
in the plot.
"... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are
going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim
vindication. ..."
"... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
"... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key
player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent,
unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
"... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable
mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have
been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often,
an outright, active traitor. ..."
The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come
and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news);
his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still
green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of
ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise -
learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding
with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.
That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang
and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters,
all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang
ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering
exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking
into Russian ties from many angles.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you
are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and
claim vindication.
Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and
the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned,
burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through,
in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists
of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary
citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.
And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to
prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural
rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because
the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in
the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.
I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn
for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention
those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel -
even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way
back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked
up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in
the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"
Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.
Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was
a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them
inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.
Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and
demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs"
that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or,
more and more often, an outright, active traitor.
Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there
is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now,
keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out
the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake.
You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.
Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would
doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world":
the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special
arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy
- in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors
in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows
what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?
We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across
a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful
use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look
there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out
of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing
on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident
in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never
really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness
of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption
was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)
Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without
going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players
in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you
really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as
their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy
to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.
But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically
inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the
rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological
outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now
live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and
corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation
of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote
suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters
- had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.
Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and
aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who
persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful
in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought
Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has
been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands
of espionage.
But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted
in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age
where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously
a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still
live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So
of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line
every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims,
immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for
the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with
Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives
for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.
So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away
again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with
his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.
Washington's blog does a fine job of archiving and assembling this kind of
background, many pieces of which we all should remember, and make more sense
together.
Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the prolonged investigations into alleged collusion with the Russian government and
obstruction of justice, which he says yielded no proof. One of the tweets refers to his firing of FBI Director James Comey. "I
am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," Trump tweeted,
sending users and media into a guessing game of what exactly he meant.
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
"... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
"... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
"... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
"... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
"... Undiscovered Self ..."
"... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
"... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper who oversaw a "trust us" report,
but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as David Marks describes.
Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's willingness to consider friendship
and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional debate.
For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover
from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally, into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal
enemy.
James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example of how this antagonism toward
Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in a June
7 speech to the Australian National Press Club.
"The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as
the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's
borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed
the renewed arms race and resulting tensions on the Russians:
"The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic forces - notably their submarine
and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite
their economic challenges - with only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."
That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race
– leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its
military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.
A Shrill Voice
Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present,
still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been
at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.
Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, for decades. His entire
attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores the context of the Russians actions.
Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president in 1996.
Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted the first known software attack
on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel – unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges.
U.S. intelligence also has a long record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer
age.
But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers and American political operatives
were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian
oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.
Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992 has come from one of two domains:
the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose
the last ten presidents of the U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight
into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."
With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing, which has been dominated by
people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks, and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought
Clapper from Air Force intelligence into the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and
an oil company executive.
Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, both Republican and
Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment
banks. And the U.S. intelligence community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who
came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.
Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence contractors have a powerful
influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers
drift between intelligence contractors and government.
It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector to do its bidding. Considering
the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil
and gas – as well as to the military and intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary
of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.
Classic Projection
Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S. government exemplifies classic
projection of the highest order.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data, while ignoring the information that
cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense
of the greatness of the United States. His ethics become situational.
As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency's massive gathering
of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.
Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, "I responded
in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."
Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate
fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really,
in my view compared to what we're confronting now."
Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth
and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot who thinks he knows best what's good for America,
a dangerous creature that the U.S. government
seems to produce in quantity.
In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw the key Jan. 6 report on alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much public evidence, he released
a report that amounted
to "trust us."
Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did
acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported.
So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing
not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to
their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the
illness they denounce.
In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the state of the human mind and how
it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like
the neurotic, sees his shadow in his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty
to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate the outward eye and prevent
it from looking at the individual life within.
"We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split,
symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization and man himself, if
the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"
Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.
David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including
Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.
mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm
Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes obvious. One does not need the authority
of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded
to ignore the reality all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to clear a
space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness, only those things one's conditioning
permits can be seen.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am
If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe, come here and read this, they
are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change for the better or they are still smart enough to understand
it and are laughing all the way to the temporary bank.
If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line with the immutable Universal laws
of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one, at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of
the lesson that one just isn't learning at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation
to continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary wake-up call in all
it's required force.
Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep down inside, that we are all
equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions, we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve
and it would behoove us to accept our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am
These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed Kennedy, but they weren't.
They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation.
I guess that Hoover had so much dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous
menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads" of these traitorous agencies
their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy
photos, that these maniacs actually practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what
kind of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring us to the brink of nuclear
war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage
and destroy his reputation unless he commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding
"American" values. They are sick control freaks.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm
If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the early 21st Century, then the works
of historians should be filed under non-fiction.
The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper to give evidence after his
blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee. The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative
body? What a crock of shit!! Who was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm
then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction
Ooops: That should be "under fiction."
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm
And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or least untruthful" manner.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am
I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall for? It really shows his utter
arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness
of believing there is "equal justice for all" in the USA.
Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am
Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's august Senate by British MP George
Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005, on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
His absolutely devastating verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't
seen it online.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions –
When I posted this on Facebook, a "liberal" friend made several angy comments about EVIL Russia and then accused me of being
a traitor for "defending a sworn enemy of our country."
In today's climate that kind of charge is not trivial. Watch out when you share it!
Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send a pile of copies to Clapper. That
guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably
"clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz he's been imbibing.
Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm
I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear unhinged, deranged, absolutely
stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the
only thing in which the US leads the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud.
Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia, without a single word of criticism
from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert
was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had
to say. Too few people realise how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am
G'Day Gary,
I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night, depending on your region.
Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
airdates.tv at last resort in the future
Hoota Thunk.
Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.
john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am
Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests. The removal of Trump is essential
to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies
and make believe. They all wanted Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she
won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran bu now. War makes money so any one
who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has to be got rid of.
Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development of this Russiagate fiasco, as former
head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right
that the whole bunch of the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of days ago
about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's what passes for entertainment nowadays.
Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily
Star, also The Guardian, and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when human development
was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually it is regressing.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am
Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks he's a god.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am
So far he seems to be getting away with it.
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm
"Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee has raised the anti-Russian
hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US political police denounced supposed Russian interference in
the US elections as a dire threat to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work
on behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the principal enemy of the United
States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions
funneled into the US elections by Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people
.
the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most powerful sections of the military-intelligence
apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the
foreign policy offensive against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since the
2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign are particularly incensed that Russian
intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation.
They want to see Assad in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred of Putin
indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and
the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:
Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote totals were altered. No ballots
were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful
information was supplied anonymously to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee
had worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall Street audiences and reassured
them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of the big financial interests
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus
and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation,
wage cutting and austerity that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality
[The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as
insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."
Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure garbage
Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter who p!ssed off Israel firsters.
Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.
G˛ , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies are so chaotic?
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered
outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer
was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or
a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which checks and balances are implemented
to reign in the retired general?
Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am
Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?
Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying for the US to control the universe
Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript and printed it out.
In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you that my dashboard warning
light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about
the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians
were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians, who (are) typically, ALMOST
GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
So we were concerned."
(Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing phrase.)
Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the Russians did it' meme.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am
That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct group of people Chuck Todd
would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth in the grand American tradition.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am
no way to bold that statement
There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At the end type "/strong" inside
but not the quotation marks shown in this example.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am
Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am
The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things. The beast they feed is the same
beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars.
If you recall last summer the DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the 2001
unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department so far this 21st Century that
no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending
this nations well earned capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling
and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.
"Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants who may have been looking into
the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am
This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like it, like building #7. Nice of
you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.
When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who could answer them. Yet, questioning
any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these
days over things such as assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you being
a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am
Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question: Why didn't that high rise
tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more
intense? It wasn't just a localised burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is
not more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely crack than steel girders will
melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in on this one.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm
My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel. The smoke will get you before the
fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.
Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and if a proper investigation were
conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone with half a brain.
If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because the guy is a physicist/mathematician
who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking
at it. He couldn't believe what he found.
Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse.
It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos.
Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no
reason."
And:
"Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side, hundreds
of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise
it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."
The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation".
Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention of it to my wife, commenting
to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist how many others had the same thought, as you and I.
Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am
Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website, but I had not seen that video
with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that production never shown on American television? Why was NIST
so remiss in its analysis, as the narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never
be admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in 50 years when all the blame can
be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never
changes.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am
Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to motives and means of the WTC collapse.
The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel
fire exceeding their melting point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.
Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. When a single
failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design.
When those are also much weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This is called
"progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft fuel would soon cause the entire floor
to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.
Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral failure across the whole floor
would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload
all columns below that, causing the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was
uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.
Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner "bearing walls." When part
of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing
structure are asymmetrical and it falls partly to the sides.
As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London fire), it is the concrete that
provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength
against bending loads (wind and earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its
curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure survives a fire sufficient
to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive failure.
Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.
But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not permitted in the US or under the
International Building Code so far as I know. It should have had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers
to suppress non-petroleum fires, non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent"
fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction, maintenance, and enforcement
practices, if not in the building code itself.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am
It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes of the WTC fire, and that
Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do
not know what happened there.
I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would have prepared a distinct method
of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked
other structures with the aircraft. Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to
wait until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any buildings did not correspond
to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.
So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and I have seen no convincing photos
or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent
with the aircraft-only model.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am
I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved in the aircraft attack. But
without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating the sources of the aircraft attack.
We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was grown by US warmongers attacking
the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more
to be learned about US/KSA/Israel involvement that we may hope will be exposed.
backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might have bought (maybe) what you
just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse
initiation stage is because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the
fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to one side. No way it would have come
straight down.
Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes,
it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions." I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have
hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is
going to know the difference?"
I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah, right.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm
I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for the long posts above, and do not
object to anyone else's views on this.
1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe floor 3 or 6, none of which show
any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must have been to lower floors.
2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across an entire floor, while the
only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts from their prior collapses.
3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn that structure if security required.
I do not know about this.
But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower collapses that suggests controlled
explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:
4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and fuel hit.
5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with chunks and dust thrown outward
from the collapsing sections only.
6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That is conclusive.
7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the falling structure as it comes down
just to create that appearance, and would use many times the explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning floor had collapsed due to explosions
instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could
such a system have been controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw the results when a fuel truck
overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge
in the 1970s (no casualties).
10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly fuel tanks; no doubt that has been
estimated.
11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't supply heat as fast as an
intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the steel cooling the heated portion.
Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril of the fittest or survival of
the least fit, both very apt in our era.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security" budgets and "justifications"
for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more than two birds were killed with one stone .
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name. Thanks, Gregory.
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm
I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm
To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.
Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining fuel burned up there would be
no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated
with the WTC. If any temperature melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and
isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which is certainly not consistent with
the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out)
and nanothermite residue were in evidence.
Why do both?
The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon, not just the WTC. The "plane
crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter. Let's not make assumptions
about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to contrived to nonexistent.
Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment on the subject here. Discussion
about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse. I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter
to their own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction).
george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am
Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001 bombings
UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am
It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing body parts for the big oil
adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and
lottery computers we can have an economy again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror
and new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You can't afford it.
Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over what's left. Nothing is left
now. News isn't fake, the money is.
mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am
I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal, "yes, I lied, but it was
for a good reason!"
Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about Russia starting the war in Georgia.
That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president of Georgia.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am
mej – you're right.
Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am
Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say of Russians shows in fact we're
looking at ourselves.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am
Let me put it another way;
We're not going to return kind for kind,
we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
Good luck .
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am
Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would discharge him from his office
immediately.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead of being thoroughly discredited
for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.
He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words up. "This man is at the end of
his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't realize grandpa-types can deceive too.
Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's one or the other. Now he's off
to pollute Australia.
"In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University (ANU) National Security College
in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in
the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.
In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance or disrespect', called the firing
of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an 'internal assault on our intuitions'."
The asylum has taken over.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am
The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power in a big way. These are glory days
for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media,
both major political parties, and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump.
The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized rabble, no match for the forces
arrayed against them.
It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment. He just doesn't have the resources
to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.
Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete unhingement of a segment of
the American population who have no rational understanding of what happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the
loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for
the madness unleashed in the US.
In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome: Refusal to Reason is the
New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident:
"Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central
Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is presented looking like Trump and
will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated by plunging knives.
This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge mentions that social media has become
a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible
this could happen simply because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity behind
the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin.
Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming
unnerving and I have a strange sense of foreboding.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am
Neoliberal_rationality/ will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves of emotional madness will be
important.
Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am
As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:
"Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent of world domination. Since the USA
have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.
"The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia does oppose to what passes for democracy
in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially:
blatant racism, dividing the world on übermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy and
open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the reason for the Hague tribunal, while
children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors,
suffering and deaths of civilians and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.
USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really, all 7 billion people, not
just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys into their transparent lies and double standards.
For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy. And we'll see how it turns out.
So far the human history teaches us that every time the übermensch eventually break their necks and diminish.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am
Yes. Good comment.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am
Pixy,
Thank you for saying all of this.
MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am
""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."
I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with but to deepen the discussion.
Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality." Powerful forces in the
US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the
Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their
power) is the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking over the world and
dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful
god and rid the world of evil. We see the results of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has
perpetrated against the rest of the world sense WWII.
Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those countries trying to be neutral
are just as evil as the others.
All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally superior to the rest of the
world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter of millions, is no longer the
fundamental guiding ideology.
You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am
Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am
You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are doing it for the trillions of
dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less. Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe
to explain to us why we have to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.
. By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots
in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures
as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with
the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they
were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described
in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from political
oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization
of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally
useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant substituting
the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its
Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired
by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example
of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable
to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved
to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from
God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,
"with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied no models for warriors contending
with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in
their hearts and the sword in their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans: the
Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and Joab routing the foes of their country;
and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every
verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed for
them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear while they trusted in God. Oliver
Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered
the attacking heathens; or to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."
Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am
"Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law"
"Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process"
Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community too much credit. There is
no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware
of their self serving actions and it is motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion
of propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with it.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am
Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their own black hearts allow themselves
the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe"
their own shit even while knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.
Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people who follow and post on CN are
opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance
of the US, and you say comes from Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting
point when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We, the dissenters in the US,
have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult. And your good points from Russia are written in a
clearer way than many Americans could even write, since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down"
the citizens.
But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as you must know are certainly not
fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with
the native peoples who opposed the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically
because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way to stop the failing empire. We
have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the
1990s tried to destroy Russia. But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin
accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the shots.
I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge to the USA, knowing that US
cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant
and arrogant that Americans are not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points
you have made, thank you.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am
Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be dominated or destroyed. Capitalism
is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus
said in Plato's Republic, "Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations, and is
the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's struggle to dominate others. The ultimate
goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God
over everything! When Ayn Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more accurately "required") by nature
to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land, resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they
do everything in their power to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by conflating
the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible
hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent "god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in
conventional wisdom not only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.
Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the public into subordinating their
own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces
back to our earliest recorded history. But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery
for so many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.
Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long? Ah, yes, the principle of "divide
and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another
rather than challenge them. So much easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible
to assault and steal from him than from the lords at the top.
I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions and meager rewards. They
are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital
idea! And how we are fools for not seeing the obvious nature of things.
Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying it through history by the Roundheads
and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth
lackey, USA. The OT god is a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really do believe
in end times.
Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
"complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public
hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of
the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.
"However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes
the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means
that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences
if caught were worth the risk.
"In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US
foreign policy.
"While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from
undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi
Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern
Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting
to over 110 billion US dollars.
"It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue
under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump."
US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
By Ulson Gunnar
landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/06/us-election-meddling-smoke-and-mirrors.html
I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's incredibly difficult Piano
Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should
call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was
one of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned to Russia. The government of
the USA is very, very sick and evil.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm
David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.
DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote to me: "There's no reason to give
the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures
only the favored voices are heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the fact
that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous feats that are widely publicized in
order to give him a superhero reputation these things are not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I
were in Russia, I could/would write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side,
the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.
Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem, rather than the people in general.
The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the
sum of history and it's hard to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear of
communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists and US oligarchs, we might have seen
what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides
from the Stalin era through the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners
in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.
If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms, defense, etc. (and of course no
social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and
we will never know what the outcome might have been.
My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep some balance, I avoid the pressure
to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured
to see conflict as a sports event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by extension
the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs of both sides bring conflict to a head by
lying to us about everything, helping us believe we can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply
a great example of these beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the other "team."
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am
Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other powers, because they need a
foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every
large group, the US failure to protect democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia
has a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation, and scheming.
This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally selected some rulers of
present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot
find better ways to protect democracy from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree with what I felt was your leaning
over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation,
there are sides to be taken, and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious
and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number one disaster for everyone
alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here. To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired
of trying to point out the obvious to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you
in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too concerned with being "even handed"
for my taste.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm
David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm always floored when I hear these
guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when, if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other
country is just trying to defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?
I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on
the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like
warlords, and it's just nice to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.
Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member said about Russia. The US bureaucratic
leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's
no way to make exact comparisons between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also
many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially hypocritical since the US
still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate number of them in prison after not even giving
them opportunities as the whites. The US has a lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to
attack others and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am
Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness with respect to gay rights, there
is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United
States.
I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree with all of your points about Clapper,
he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter. As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation
of the nefarious covert operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging from satanists,
Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment, you address a very under reported issue, which
I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight
the communists. I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that is too sensitive
to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love to more of your ideas on this subject.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am
Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations. This is the truth that is,
just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very clearly, the central story of the past century.
Thank you for saying it so well.
Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things. Telling the truth might see you
ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.
Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the
thousand Russian agents."
– Hillary
Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am
"The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi lover McCain. We in Aus really
are pathetic grovellers.
Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am
This nails the anti Russia movement
Zero Hedge
Why the Elites Hate Russia
1, Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries.
The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":
Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat
to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office
said two branches of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would
be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian
state.
2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs
however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military – it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to
the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:
3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because
they had a few semesters of French.
. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.
While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply
don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.
Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country for all its vaunted proclamations
about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down
economically so many harbor resentments.
Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited its citizens for military service
when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend
whose son-in-law has to finish his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted
in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes wasted money. I suspect Russians
have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.
Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am
Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron". I never get a hit. MacronLeaks
proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate.
The parallels are astonishing: a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon)
and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round and then discredit Fillon, in
the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in
the second round, thereby allowing Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story
before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's arms before the vote. In
a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell
into a trap he had set for them. The matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public,
one Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is therefore established that Russians,
whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought
to rig the French presidential election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James
Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.
Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am
Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?
Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a Rothschild banker, he appeared
as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated
by the wealthy. Obama endorsed Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports the
neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched the wealthy wherever it is employed.
Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought
in, hired as wage slaves, the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are making
inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have lied in the past about domestic surveillance;
he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know
they did it (although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest, the most bizarre
thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you put yourself in the same category of absurdity.
TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years with no end in sight the American
public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into
supporting more guns. Econ 101 .. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?
J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which he, along with Brennan, Comey,
and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews
with Megyn Kelley and better yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President
Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.
"... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
"... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16
WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter
rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!" and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding
inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election.
Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein,
the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last
month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote,
apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.
"Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.
The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine
officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds.
The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling senior positions and increasingly
at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong feud with the government's intelligence agencies.
Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness and uncertainty, with some expressing
hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed
in each district after Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.
In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III,
the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United
States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich,
an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed at destroying" the Trump presidency.
...
graphic: How 7 Trump Associates Have Been
Linked to Russia https://nyti.ms/2sVvf23
NYT - updated June 13
American hegemony is the neoconservatives doctrine and "the Russian threat" is an insurance of MIC $1.1 trillion annual budget.
And DemoRats now are just another War party, a bunch of lobbyists with the only difference that they get less money from Israel,
and more from MIC and Wall Street (all wars are bankers wars)
Those "very serious guys" are determined to install President Pence and already succeeded in applointed a Special Prosecutor
as the milestone of this color revolution.
Poor Trump did not realized that he is trapped until it was too late.
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has
launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This
liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conveniently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow
of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate
aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink
of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the
Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding
of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary
rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the
US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
They should investigate why Comey wrote this memo is is there any conspiracy to oust President Trump...
BTW much better timing of firing Comey would be immediately after Inauguration citing the fact that
he outsourced DNC investigation to a private firm with Ukrainian ties.
The FBI won't be publicly releasing any memos that ousted FBI director James Comey wrote about
his conversations with President Donald Trump because they might interfere with an ongoing investigation.
... ... ...
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said to Russian officials
in the Oval Office the day after the firing, according to a
New York Times report . "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
Looks like in the last Presidential elections voters faced Faustian bargain (A deal in which one focuses on present gain without
considering the long term consequences): Crazy neocon warmonger, vs. Republican variant of "bait and switch" artist Obama.
The only two candidates who were to some extent promising "in a long run" (Sanders and Rand Paul) were eliminated before the
final round.
As the result we got what we deserve as brainwashed by neoliberals and neocons lemmings. So Trump is not a problem, he is a
symptom of the much larger problem: the crisis of neoliberalism. In a way, he is punishment for our neoliberal sins.
Many people voted for Trump in a hope that he will end the neocons wars. They were deceived and now keep their heads low:
"Yes, I voted for Donald Trump. When people confront me and ask me why, I sort of shuffle off, head down, while muttering
something about how "he wasn't the war candidate."
But the current color revolution against Trump (so called Russiagate) has all signs of an intelligence operation and that's
a problem. Here is the basic scheme as I understand it:
Provoke Trump.
Use MSM to produce hysteria for this act, not matter what it is about.
Force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor either via Obama mole in Department of Justice, or via Congress.
Remove Tramp, or force him to voluntarily resign due to dirt dug by Special Prosecutor on him and his family (Bill Clinton
know this staff pretty well).
It looks like this scheme might have significant externalities:
1. First of all VP Mike Pence is not a solution; he is a part of the problem.
2. And the second the direction and a strength of the blowback for this intelligence operation is unpredictable.
"... If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller, BFF of fired FBI Director James Comey, was appointed strictly as an "independent" counsel to probe alleged "collusion" between Team Trump and the Russians – and not a plant to bring down the president – you can stop thinking that. ..."
"... The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said. ..."
"... The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates , officials said. ..."
"... It's not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, right? Oh, wait . Is it possible that this was all just a set up ? That perhaps Comey broke the law by leaking sensitive information in conversations he allegedly had with Trump – just so a special prosecutor would be named ? ..."
If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller, BFF of fired FBI Director
James Comey, was appointed strictly as an "independent" counsel to probe alleged "collusion" between Team Trump and the Russians
– and not a plant to bring down the president – you can stop thinking that.
Leaks by the
Deep State to the disgusting Washington Post on Wednesday – the day Republicans were scrambling for their lives on a baseball
field in Northern Virginia – published a story claiming that Mueller is looking into obstruction of justice charges against President
Donald J. Trump.
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence
officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice,
officials said.
The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly
year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there
was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible
financial crimes among Trump associates , officials said.
[ ]
The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9 , according to people familiar
with the matter. Mueller's office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate
that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
Of course, this could all be just a coincidence , right? After all, there's nothing to the appointment of a special prosecutor
to investigate this president (again and again and again) who just happens to be a former FBI director himself
and best bud of the guy
who got fired right?
It's not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, right? Oh,
wait . Is it possible that this was all just a
set up ?
That perhaps Comey broke the law by leaking sensitive information in conversations he allegedly had with Trump –
just so a special
prosecutor would be named ?
Well, call us conspiracy theorists, but yeah, it sure seems like this has all been a set up to get our president from the outset.
And now the Deep State has all the pieces in place.
If this sham is allowed to proceed, there is only one logical outcome: The finding or, actually, more correctly, the creation
of "evidence" that Trump somehow, acting in his constitutional role as head of the Executive Branch, did something improper to
someone at some point when he, you know, tried to run the Executive Branch.
Constitutional experts have been saying for weeks now there is no there, there , when it comes to obstruction. Or anything
else Trump and his administration have been accused of doing even after, as the Post reminds us, a year-long investigation
, in which hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have no doubt been expended.
But not one dollar has been expended investigating Comey's
illegal leak . Or all of the leaking – from the Justice Department, intelligence agencies and the White House. Weird, huh?
As the president has said repeatedly – and said again today – this is a "witch hunt." It's actually worse than that; this is the
Deep State's effort to take out a duly-elected president simply because they fear that he will do what he campaigned to do, drain
the nasty, infested, incestuous swamp in which they swim.
It's time to band together to support the president. He will need it in the months ahead.
Update [12:30 CST]: It should be noted that following Comey's Feb. 14 private dinner with Trump, in which the president allegedly
said (Trump has denied it) "I hope you can see your way past" the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn,
the former FBI director never reported to anyone that he believed the president was ordering him to drop the investigation
(which Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, has a constitutional right to do). Only after he was fired by Trump did Comey
turn around and then claim the president was attempting to "obstruct" him.
As to the Post story, something stinks about it. Consider that in March , Comey
told the president he wasn't under investigation again – and he would have been had their been alleged "obstruction of
justice." And yet, as the Post stated, Trump did not come under investigation for obstruction until after Comey was fired.
Finally, if Trump had actually ordered the Flynn and Russia investigation halted, it obviously wasn't halted
– and the president would have followed up on such an order to ensure the investigation was shut down. As Donald Trump Jr. notes,
when dad gives an order, there is no ambiguity; everyone knows it's an order:
Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable
reputation. Many describe him as a "
hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong
military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an
emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said
on the campaign trail.
Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built
up a reputation as one of the most
conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently
describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is
a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and
push an activist social conservative agenda.
For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the
strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow
businesses to
deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback
did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending
Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.
He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the "
global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a "
clash of civilizations
" strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.
But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis
on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W.
Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded,
bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.
It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency
also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade
regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an
abrupt
about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence
may reverse many of these pronouncements.
In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign
policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the
military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor
H.R. McMaster and the
economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary
Steve Mnuchin.
Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists
and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely
return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.
A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery
rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional
form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for
intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.
These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war
or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political
career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.
"... According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects. ..."
"... Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ): ..."
"... If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying. ..."
"... They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today. ..."
"... Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did. ..."
"... Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent. ..."
Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President
Donald Trump of "playing the swamp's game" in governing. advertisement
According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in
taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation
had taken on other aspects.
Limbaugh argued although he was playing "the swamp's game," he had other tools at his disposal
that he has yet to use.
He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There's nothing stopping him from doing
it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds
to go to Rosenstein and say, "Look, this investigation can't be wide open for anything. You've
gotta limit what these people can look for. You've gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes.
You can't have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records.
There has to be a limit."
He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And
if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, "There's no way he can
do it," they're talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel's been
named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed
to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.
If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that
happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that
once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain
the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's
getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying.
And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional
inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government
- the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending
quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.
They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood
legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges
are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against
various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place
today.
These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous
executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch.
The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to
take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said,
"We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love
Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And
they did.
Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's
in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the
executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The
built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special
counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality,
the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there
is designed as a deterrent.
But he could still do it. It's not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It's
pure politics. And it's the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the
swamp's game right now. And that's not what Trump was elected to do, and that's not what Trump
wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp's game. I think the effort to get health care passed
in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to
get legislation passed.
Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people
that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine
'em, you cajole 'em, you beat 'em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed,
exactly the way it's always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up
not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because
it was "all swamp all the time."
Now, you might say, "Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp's the swamp. There's no other way to get
a bill passed. The president's not a dictator." I understand that. But Trump has many more tools
at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn't say that. He's got more tools at his disposal
than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch
is awesome.
Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn't gotten close to utilizing
it. It's just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked
that Trump is under investigation. You've heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes
us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of
Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn't a shred of evidence even now,
folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel
looking into financial - there's no evidence of anything. It's a wild good chase.
Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation.
If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time
we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay
in the media, don't misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what's happening. But he could do it,
is the point. Now, he won't probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of
it.
But the idea that he's been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under
investigation, and at that time we didn't even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into
Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have
known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost.
Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that
way as well.
But he didn't. Why? He's new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the
things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded
in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all
come together. I'm sure that's what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that 'cause
they don't want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
"... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1
trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched
an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world
order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the
first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial
bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon;
support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil,
Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and
the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."
American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's
$1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.
There is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their
party
( National Sentinel ) Globalism: We already know that President
Donald J. Trump's message of "America first" has rattled the world's globalist elite, as past American leaders have allowed them
to feed off our success and drain jobs, opportunities and treasure from our country while they distribute that wealth
to other countries, so they can control them. Globalism today really is nothing less that colonialism from past centuries,
only writ large and done with dollars, not military divisions.
In any event, Trump's nose-thumbing of the G7 leaders' agenda and his [reported] plan to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords
may be a bridge too far for the world's elite, many of whom are meeting in Chantilly, Va., this week – an event
to which
Trump did send representation .
As reported by The Guardian , the secretive Bilderberg annual gathering of the world's governing and industrial elite "will
include a 'progress report' on the Trump administration," and no one is sure if he'll get a passing grade.
So, perhaps, Plan B is taking shape.
As reported "exclusively"
by InfoWars (yes, we know, but read on anyway), that plan may consist of "overthrowing" Trump in an extreme, last-use tactic
to thwart his agenda, if talking to him and convincing him to abandon it (which he can't do because he'll lose reelection) doesn't
work:
Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see their agenda as being in "deep trouble"
and that Donald Trump poses a "dangerous" risk to the international order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.
Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to the real
agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of topics
released officially by Bilderberg.
Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much the primary
focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.
One Bilderberger told the site that since Trump is "dangerously obsessed" with upsetting and derailing the current world order,
it may just be that there is no other way for the globalist cabal to protect its interests than deposing, or helping to depose, a
U.S. president who, for the first time in decades, isn't dancing to the same sheet of music.
More:
Globalists are baffled as to Trump's "erratic" style of governance and are panicked that he could undo decades of work they
put in to build the new world order.
However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought to his senses and taught "how the world really works," a line that
is typical of the arrogance that has come to epitomize the attitude of Bilderberg members over the years.
Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders from Bilderberg, the only recourse left for the elite will be to
turf him out of office.
Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be impeached, but only if Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, in
which case his days are "numbered".
If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of 2018, globalists are confident that any effort on behalf of his administration
to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and any other globalist treaties will be thwarted.
As of this writing Trump has yet to formally announce he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accords (or declare it a treaty
and send it to the Senate, where it won't be ratified). But clearly there is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is
a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party.
Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia "President
Donald Trump nominated
Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on
January 13, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017"
On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein (who had been put in charge of the Russia probe as soon as he was
confirmed, because Attorney General
Jeff Sessions
recused himself after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his contacts with the
Russian ambassador when asked about those during his Senate confirmation hearing[38])
appointed Robert
Mueller as a
special
counsel to conduct the investigation into "any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
President Donald Trump" as well as any matters arising directly from that investigation.[39]
Rosenstein's order authorizes Mueller to bring criminal charges in the event that he discovers any
federal crimes.[39]
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein sees no reason at this point to recuse himself from
overseeing the special counsel's investigations involving President Trump and the 2016
presidential election, the Justice Department said Friday.
"... Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, says the conspiracy lies within the Department of Justice, which he adds is full of Obama-era holdovers who are out to get President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... mert also targeted fired FBI Director James Comey for failing to write a memo about his meeting with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in which he said she told him to treat the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter" rather than an "investigation." ..."
"... "When he said that the president lied about him and he used the L-word, Comey was lying. How do we know? Look at all of the things he said. That was ridiculous to not have done a memo, and then I heard him say he had done the memo and then he talked with some of his colleagues," the congressman said. ..."
Executive Branch: A U.S. representative from Texas is warning Americans that there most definitely is a Trump-related conspiracy
afoot, but it has nothing to do with the president's alleged "collusion" with Russia.
Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, says the conspiracy lies within the Department of Justice, which he adds is full of Obama-era
holdovers who are out to get President Donald J. Trump.
"We have a conspiracy remaining afoot in the Department of Justice that is out to destroy this president and they've got
to be fired, if not worse," Gohmert told Fox News , as
reported by The Hill .
Gohmert also targeted fired FBI Director James Comey for failing to write a memo about his meeting with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, in which he said she told him to treat the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter" rather than an "investigation."
During last week's Senate testimony, Comey said he kept memos of all his meetings with President Donald J. Trump. Critics like
Gohmert have said doing so with Trump but not with Obama or other Obama administration officials he interacted with at Justice suggests
political motivations rather than genuine concern.
"When he said that the president lied about him and he used the L-word, Comey was lying. How do we know? Look at all of the
things he said. That was ridiculous to not have done a memo, and then I heard him say he had done the memo and then he talked with
some of his colleagues," the congressman said.
Gohmert called for serious legal consequences for all Justice Department officials Comey talked to regarding the memos.
"We need to round up everybody he talked to, because they were all conspiring against the president," he said.
All previous Presidents, including Obama, Bush II, and Clinton, have much more serious transgressions (suppression of Hillary Clinton
investigation is one).
Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara on Sunday said he thinks there is evidence to start a case for obstruction of justice against
President Trump.
"I think there's absolutely evidence to begin a case -- I think it's very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in
the law, to be clear that no one knows right now whether there is a provable case of obstruction," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"It's also true...that there's no basis to say there's no obstruction."
Bharara also said during the interview that there is evidence from someone who is under oath that "on at least one occasion, the
president of the United States, cleared the room of his vice president and his attorney general and told his director of the FBI
that he should essentially drop the case against his former national security adviser."
"Whether or not that is impeachable or that's indictable, that's a very serious thing and I'm not sure that people fully get that
the standard is not just whether something is a crime or not," Bharara said.
"Whether or not it can be charged as a crime or Congress will impeach, it is a very serious thing."
He said there is a lot to be "frightened" and "outraged" about.
"That's an incredibly serious thing if people think that the president of the United States can tell heads of law enforcement
agencies, based on his own whim or his own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular
criminal cases against individuals," he said.
"... While only five attorneys have been identified, concerns have come up over the political leanings of Quarles, Rhee and Weissmann. They have donated overwhelmingly to Democrats , totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records. Widening probe The special counsel's investigators are looking into questions of Russian interference in last year's election, and plan to speak to senior intelligence officials, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. ..."
"... Mueller is also investigating whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. ..."
"... "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history -- led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
Special counsel Robert Mueller has brought 13 lawyers on board to handle the Russia investigation, with plans to hire more, according
to his spokesman Peter Carr. Mueller has assembled a high-powered team of top investigators and leading experts, including seasoned
attorneys who've represented major American companies in court and who have worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud
scandal. Among them are James Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, both of
whom Mueller brought
over from his old firm, WilmerHale. He's also hired Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation.
"That is a great, great team of complete professionals, so let's let him do his job," former independent counsel Kenneth Starr,
who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, told ABC News. While only five attorneys have been identified,
concerns have
come up over the political leanings of Quarles, Rhee and Weissmann.
They have donated
overwhelmingly to Democrats , totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission
records. Widening probe The special counsel's investigators are looking into questions of Russian interference in last year's
election, and plan to speak to senior intelligence officials, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.
Mueller is also investigating whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice,
The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The Post reported that the interviews represent a widening of the probe to include looking into whether the President obstructed
justice in suggesting to his former FBI Director James Comey that Comey drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump's former
national security adviser, as well as for his firing of Comey.
Mueller's investigators have asked for information and will talk to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security
Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers, according to a source, who said they have also sought information from recently retired NSA Deputy
Director Richard Ledgett.
Coats and Rogers have testified that they were not pressured by the Trump administration.
'Phony' story
Law enforcement
sources tell CNN that the special counsel is gathering information and considering whether there is evidence to launch a full-scale
obstruction investigation.
Hill Russia
investigators plow forward, Mueller meetings on horizon Trump, however, referred to the Post's reporting as a "phony" story in
a tweet Thursday. "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story.
In another tweet, Trump called it "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history -- led by some very
bad and conflicted people!" A spokesman for the office of the special counsel declined to comment, and so did a representative for
the director of National Intelligence. In a statement, the National Security Agency said it "will fully cooperate with the special
counsel," but declined to comment further.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump's outside attorney, Marc Kasowitz, slammed the Post's
reporting. "The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," he said.
WASHINGTON -
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has privately acknowledged he may need to recuse himself
from matters relating to the probe into Russia and last year's U.S. election, given that he could
become a potential witness in the investigation, ABC News reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.
ABC said Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at the Department of Justice, told Associate Attorney
General Rachel Brand she would have authority over the probe if he were to step aside. Rosenstein
appointed special counsel Robert Mueller last month to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the
presidential election and possible collusion by President Donald Trump's campaign, and has told lawmakers
he would fire him only with good cause.
He is the department's lead official on the issue after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused
himself from any issues linked to the Russia probe. Rosenstein was also the author of a memo recommending
the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, which the White House cited along with a memo from Sessions
as the reason Trump fired Comey on May 9.
Trump, a Republican, later said that he had the Russia matter in mind when he fired Comey. The
Democratic National Committee said on Friday it saw a need for Rosenstein to recuse himself, but
it said control over the investigation should be given to Mueller and not another Trump appointee.
ABC's report comes as Trump said on Friday he is personally under investigation in the widening
Russia probe over Comey's firing. According to ABC, Rosenstein made the comments about his possible
recusal at a recent meeting with Brand but has yet to formally ask career attorneys at the department
for their opinion on the issue.
At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Rosenstein declined to answer whether he would have a conflict
of interest if he became a witness in the investigation but pledged to "do the right thing."
"The truth is, you elected a man who never quits. He never backs down. He's a fighter.
He's a winner," Pence said, according to an audio recording obtained by Politico Magazine . "And
I'll make you a promise: No matter what Washington, D.C., might be focused on at any given moment,
President Donald Trump will never stop fighting for the American people and for advancing an agenda
that will make America great again!"
His audience roared. For those who feared the GOP's once-in-a-generation opportunity for a policy
renaissance was being squandered by infighting and incompetence and the creeping scent of scandal,
the vice president's words, as they so often have during the early days of the Trump administration,
provided temporary relief. The performance was vintage Pence. He was grandiose but grounded, hailing
a host of early victories but cautioning that the biggest were yet to come; he was authoritative
but deferential, speaking for the party and the government while carrying greetings from his boss.
Above all, Pence was upbeat, befitting the "happy warrior" persona he has long labored to promote.
"It's hard to get through all these accomplishments-unless you're watching cable news," he said,
chuckling. "They never come up, except on one network!" Had Pence not nodded twice to the Beltway
media's preoccupations, one would have had no inkling that Trump was enduring the most perilous stretch
of his young presidency-or that Pence appeared at risk of becoming collateral damage.
The night before, on the eve of Trump's first foreign trip-and Pence's private speech-two news
outlets published a pair of eyebrow-raising stories that reflected mounting anxiety within the vice
president's inner circle. The sourcing and strategy seemed clearly choreographed. First, both articles
aimed to distance Pence from the chaos engulfing Trump's White House; CNN
quoted "a senior administration adviser" who said Pence "looks tired" and never expected such
mayhem on the job, while NBC
cited "a source close to the administration" who complained of a "pattern" of Pence being kept
in the dark on matters relating to the scandal-plagued former national security adviser, Mike Flynn.
Second, both stories were authored by former Pence "embeds," reporters who had spent months traveling
with him and are expertly sourced among the vice president's tight-knit team. And third, the news
accounts cast Pence in a sympathetic light at the very moment when the D.C. media was, for the first
time, beginning to hammer him. The New York Times
had reported the day earlier that Flynn informed the Pence-run transition team before Inauguration
Day that he was under federal investigation; the implications for Pence were staggering, and the
White House categorically denied the story. But Pence had also courted trouble the week earlier by
insisting that Trump's decision to fire Comey was based on the deputy attorney general's recommendation-a
claim Trump promptly contradicted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, embarrassing the vice president
and sending an awkward question echoing around Washington: Is Pence being kept out of the loop, or
is he being deceitful?
"... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
"... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
"... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
"... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
"... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
"... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
"... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
"... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
"... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
"... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
"... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
"... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
"... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
"... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
"... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
"... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
"... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
"... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
"... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
"... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
"... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
"... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
"... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
"... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
"... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
"... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
"... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
"... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
"... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
"... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
"... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
"The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants,
his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can
claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the
most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed
to a military confrontation with Russia."
- Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site
Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government,
treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In
fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.
Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that
Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:
"Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed
with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't
personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case
on him," Comey said." (Politico)
So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with
Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1?
His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the
2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political
elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not
guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.
What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know
that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue
when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind
or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?
Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey,
Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out."
But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?
Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence
Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia
probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."
A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours
of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?
Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over
Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia
to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce
the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before,
it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much
damage as possible on Trump and his administration.
Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?
It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started
recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in
his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the
goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes
of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."
Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the
elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as
possible on the target of a political smear campaign.
Isn't that what Comey was really up to?
Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?
"There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some
facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in
dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration
during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and
indefinite detention.
On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous
memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of
the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the
new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.
In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other
forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless
wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director",
ACLU)
Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including)
torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and
honor?
It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.
Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he
did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton?
In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?
I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager
to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just
protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?
In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation
with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about
that for a minute. Here's what he said:
"My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine
to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons,
but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel
, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."
Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined
political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective
from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old'
Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into
anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed
at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't
work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it
took.
In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink
slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired
gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off
to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together
his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.
Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.
Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey
to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump
said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.
I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this
type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged
that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if
there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that
out."
Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly
murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan
Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:
"The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the
legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime
by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even
a strong - case for obstruction.
It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate.
However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .
The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The
mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction.
.
It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If
prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or
conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal
cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors
could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.
We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump."
("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald
Trump", USA Today)
The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around
and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records,
bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial
tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches
onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit,
and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should
be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied
until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.
But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?
Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been
deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted
to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment.
Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably
the way this will end.
Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him
to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump.
But it doesn't work.
So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?
Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid
that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon,
firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)
A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political
assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the
appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
How's that for symetry!
Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire
Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful
and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be
fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.
Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven
[ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed
the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump
a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations
with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of
course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire
argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone
with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials.
The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does
not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used
a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving
leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary
by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]
Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and
insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to
launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.
Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering
foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.
Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the
President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.
But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?
Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my
view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country.
At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?
I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that
existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would
become more important than across the Atlantic.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his
betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor
or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would
be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand
Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday
Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.
The endless investigations
can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They
would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump
should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven,
too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to
a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies
down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.
This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.
Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia.
It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign
will of the American People.
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied
us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this
" Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous
criminality.
On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started
seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.
The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous,
defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.
@Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey
was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.
Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can
still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he
hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel
was appointed on false pretext.
Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members
of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote
for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must
go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..
Why should Trump hire his own executioner?
Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing?
Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation.
Why wasn't there an investigation?
Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame
him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.
Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed
to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man
whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein
and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.
If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR
OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
A little discouraged.
Don' t think the swamp is drainable.
Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances.
Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about
swamp.
Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done.
Trump underestimated deep state.
They ARE in charge.
What will the people do ?
Become more apathetic?
Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging.
Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens.
Can't go on as is.
The death by a thousand cuts.
In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey,
Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so,
and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime
associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an
effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults
are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.
I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons
I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha
Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement
made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer
due process in the yankee imperium.
The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged
was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about
what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish
this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break
with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the
Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again,
not a sell-out like Sanders.
Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump.
However, they better start getting on board with him.
They are tied together, whether they like it or not.
what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats
yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail
ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence,
adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the
99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's
puppet masters pulling the strings
IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid
apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign
to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire
is maddening
.
don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct
assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms
of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
.
i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider
that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't
like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
.
come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards
think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
(hint: NOT the libtard side )
"Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's
all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step
in"
The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn
enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially
jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the
electorate position?
I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their
hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of
their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the
great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion
or blackmail scenario.
We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein
(that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab)
and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the
jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky
soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.
Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt.
Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress.
Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming
them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or
Washington establishment for protection."
He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI.
etc etc.
Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.
Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason
he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there
they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.
@Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements
and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor.
Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.
I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone
is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good
choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes
breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended
up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging
and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.
@Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics
of the set-up with laser-like precision.
We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional
order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but
I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate
of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade"
deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia,
implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State
require to set a soft coup into motion?
Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported
and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on
day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted
to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone
under the guise of openness.
Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit.
Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the
case, out of fear and not allegiance.
Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him
into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to
do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly
from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said
anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely
political.
They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go,
but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection
of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always
open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would
prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would
look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment
line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can
doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on
his opponents..
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
@Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct
targets.)
Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a
much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of
Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.
As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we
got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's
have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve
it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come
out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc.
Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)
JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed
the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K
mark.
"..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all
back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "
YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the
murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.
That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who
recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs
to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumč that him suspect.
WaPo rumor mills (aka fake news). In case this Russiagate color revolution fails, Bezos
should be tried for sedition: "Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly". So some anonymous
officials leak information and WaPo published it without verified if it is true of an attempt to
damage Trump. That's sedition.
As of obstruction of justice and financial crimes: this is a no brainer path to impeachment (you
can always find obstruction of justice if you look closely; to say nothing about financial
machinations on Trump level), as Russian hacks are propaganda and everybody understand this.
This might be CrowdStrike hacks to conceal leaks, Ukrainian hacks, whatever. The fact that FBI
was pressed to "outsource" investigation to CrowdStrike suggests the former.
What is unclear is what DemoRats and neocons wins with President Pence. Trump already folded to
their demands and there is a distinct continuation of the US foreign policy. But backlash to
this coup d'état (or color revolution to be correct) might be unpredictable.
Notable quotes:
"... The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's own conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said. ..."
"... Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions. ..."
"... The obstruction of justice investigation into the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has now taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government. ..."
"... The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted obstruction of justice question as more than just a "he said, he said" dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said. ..."
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
The Washington Post Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing
senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's own conduct marks a major
turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling
during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign
and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes
among Trump associates, officials said.
Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January
that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey's
firing.
Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence,
Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers' recently departed deputy, Richard
Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller's investigators as early as this week. The investigation
has been cloaked in secrecy and it's unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.
The NSA said in statement that it will "fully cooperate with the special counsel," and declined
to comment further. The office of Director of National Intelligence and Ledgett declined to comment.
The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump's personal lawyer,
Marc Kasowitz. "The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and
illegal," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.
The officials said Coats, Rogers and Ledgett would appear voluntarily, though it remains unclear
whether they will describe in full their conversations with Trump and other top officials, or will
be directed by the White House to invoke executive privilege. It is doubtful the White House could
ultimately use executive privilege to try to block them from speaking to Mueller's investigators.
Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot
use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions.
The obstruction of justice investigation into the president began days after Comey was fired on
May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has now taken up that work,
and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate his team is actively
pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted obstruction of justice question as more than
just a "he said, he said" dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.
Probing the president for possible crimes is a complicated affair, even if convincing evidence
of a crime is found. The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict
a sitting president. Instead, experts say the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of
criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.
"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's
actions amounted to obstruction of justice."
Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color
revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate
or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using
this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.
Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge
which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result.
The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his
son-in-law deals.
In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival,
by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. Which probably is OK for neocons because
war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the
US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.
BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a
head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office
of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now
reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering
independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.
Headquarters : Washington, D.C.
Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence
matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.
This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt
to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible
digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid
Hillary hacks for the job ;-).
But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the
new level?
Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about
civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably
guessed right:
"... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
"... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
"... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
"... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
"... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
"... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists
etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs.
They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to
s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello
lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying
by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not
– but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to
say the least.
That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit
alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that
have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense?
b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story?
e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.
Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously
read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin
Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)
My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure,
innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have
access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there,
then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid
, to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks,
accidents or incomptence.
Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the
same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative
news/websites/blogs'.
Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who
(1) are cleared
to the appropriate level, and
(2) have the need to know.
It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret
security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties
related to it.
Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a
Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to
the addressee.
I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus.
Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor
at the time, not even a permanent employee.
Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic
surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.
But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense
systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area,
if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign
leaders and the American electorate
Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his
apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture.
The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in
return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.
On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing,
was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether
this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent
of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room
or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign
may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential
election.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with
respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly
on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.
Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the
executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president
is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch.
He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he
alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.
As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal
government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance
could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the
voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent
of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.
There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and
that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce
their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law
enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have
budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the
sole legitimate basis for government in America.
Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the
premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders
are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal
laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his
discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.
Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free
to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her
job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That
is at least the theory of the unitary executive.
After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence
of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus,
the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent
from the president.
The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return
to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep
with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation
concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's
orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
Where does this leave us today?
Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president
is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with
the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House
is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election,
the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this.
And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she
was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.
These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged
with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But
it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without
that consent, it is illegitimate.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked
In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that
revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and
the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.
So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly
don't remember consenting to it.
Or twelve years of public schooling.
Or the TSA.
Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.
Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a
bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.
"After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the
independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious
efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."
The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority,
and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that
is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists,
then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .
WSJ - Del Quentin Wilber, Shane Harris and Paul Sonne - June
14, 2017
WASHINGTON-President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI
Director James Comey is now a subject of the federal probe
being headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has
expanded to include whether the president obstructed justice,
a person familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Mueller is examining whether the president fired Mr.
Comey as part of a broader effort to alter the direction of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into Russia's
alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and
whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Moscow, the
person said.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Trump's personal lawyer,
Marc Kasowitz, denounced the revelation in a statement. "The FBI leak of information regarding the president is
outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," Mr. Corallo said.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, declined to
comment. The special counsel's pursuit of an obstruction of
justice probe was first reported Wednesday by the Washington
Post.
Mr. Mueller's team is planning to interview Director of
National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency
Director Mike Rogers as part of its examination of whether
Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice, the person said.
The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett,
who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA, the
person added.
While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo
documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump,
according to people familiar with the matter. During the
call, the president questioned the veracity of the
intelligence community's judgment that Russia had interfered
with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say
there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and
Russian officials, they said. Russia has denied any government effort to meddle in the
U.S. election. Mr. Ledgett declined to comment, and officials
at the NSA didn't respond to a request for comment. An aide
to Mr. Coats declined to comment.
Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers told a Senate panel June 7 that
they didn't feel pressured by Mr. Trump to intervene with Mr.
Comey or push back against allegations of possible collusion
between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia. But the top national
security officials declined to say what, if anything, Mr.
Trump requested they do in relation to the Russia probe.
"If the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him
to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that,"
Mr. Coats said June 7. Mr. Rogers said he would also be
willing to meet with the special counsel's team.
Mr. Comey told a Senate panel on June 8 that Mr. Trump
expressed "hope" in a one-on-one Oval Office meeting that the
FBI would drop its investigation into former national
security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned under pressure
for making false statements about his conversations with a
Russian diplomat. Mr. Trump has denied making that request.
Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr.
Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to
obstruction of justice. The former FBI director also said he
had furnished the special counsel with memos he wrote
documenting his interactions with the president on the
matter.
At a June 13 hearing at a House of Representatives panel,
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein declined to say who
asked him to write a memo justifying Mr. Comey's firing. The
White House initially cited that memo as the reason for the
termination, and Mr. Trump later said in an NBC interview
that he also was influenced by the Russia investigation. Mr.
Rosenstein said he wasn't at liberty to discuss the matter.
"The reason for that is that if it is within the scope of
Director Mueller's investigation, and I've been a prosecutor
for 27 years, we don't want people talking publicly about the
subjects of ongoing investigations," Mr. Rosenstein said.
"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr.
Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to
obstruction of justice."
Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched
from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and
other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to
raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to
appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this
mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary
result.
Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove
Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used
to remove any any past and future US president with
guaranteed result.
The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals
within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals.
In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously
was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like
Clinton did with Yugoslavia.
Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is
the first, the second and the third solution to any problem.
But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will
be further damaged.
BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do
you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17
intelligence agencies in the past?
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War
II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now
reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing
intelligence from all sources and offering independent
analysis of global events and real-time insight.
Headquarters : Washington, D.C.
Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's
primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to
other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents
obtained by FAS.
This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He
proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of
his family close to White house is a huge liability for him
now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law
by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid
Hillary hacks for the job ;-).
But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the
current vice president elevated to the new level?
Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump
supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war
recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably
direction of reaction is probably right:
You are a typical retired "frustrated underachiever". Nothing
new here and your replies fits the pattern perfectly well.
You probably should not comment things that you have no
formal training. I do believe that you are unable to define
such terms as "neocon", "Bolshevism", "Trotskyism" and
"jingoism" without looking into the dictionary. Judging from
your comments this is above your IQ.
Of cause, such twerps as you are always lucking in
Internet forums, so you are just accepted here as the
necessary evil. But you do no belong here. No way. Neither in
economic or political discussions.
You can add nothing to the discussion. Actually your
political position is the position of a typical neocons and
as such is as close to betrayal of American Republic as one
can get. If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon
overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and
all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion
debt their lies and wars have created. Because interests of neocons are not interests of the 300
million of US population. That's why people elected Trump
with all his warts.
It is sleazy idiots like you who get us into the current
mess. And please tell your daughters that you betrayed them
as well -- you endanger them and their children, if they have
any. Of course for retired idiots like you nuclear holocaust
does not matter. But it does matter for other people. Is it
so difficult to understand?
Agree, add JohnH and you see a disinformation team. One goal
is to undermine the credibility of this blog, so skipping
over their entries is what I recommend, unless you want to
learn fifth column techniques. Quess that is interesting, but
it is trolldpm!
The choir of losers continues to sing: 'Putin and Trump
colluded' ...just like the right wing sang that Bill Clinton
was guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes. And what did they
finally get on Bill? Monica.
They're just lone cranks. If you think they're a
disinformation team, you're paranoid. There are a lot of
crazy people out there. If you don't understand that fact you
need to get out more.
EMichael and PGL love to scold the
cranks as much as possible b/c it makes their establishment
line sound reasonable. I agree with you. I just ignore them.
At least they're keeping busy instead of harassing people
offline.
BTW, now I think Trump is probably going down. He floats idea
of firing Mueller. Mueller tells press they're investigating
Trump. Meanwhile the Republicans are passing Trumpcare. Trump
is moving to replace Yellen. So Mueller will have this list
of things Trump and his campaign did. Will Republicans vote
to remove Trump? Will it depend upon how the public reacts?
Perhaps they are just attempting to hasten the descent of the
Democratic Party establishment consensus towards its
inevitable rock bottom, the condition at which all addicts
must finally arrive before they are forced to admit that they
are the authors of their own failure and the only ones
capable of their own rescue.
Before I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm
hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its
conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its
analysis into question upon further inspection.
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "
Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the
White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process.
It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking
the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content
of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that
is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services
(RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does,
that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to
find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to
the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that
the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith
in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own
analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC
hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers
but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck
an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what
it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting
that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming
to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly
considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled,
Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S.
cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential
election.
The
CrowdStrike report, released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed
any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses
and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to
link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder
Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.
How is this not the biggest story in America right now?
Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company's report
"delusional"
in a Facebook
post . CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially
were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike
misinterpreted their data and hadn't reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.
In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.
"The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong
solely to the report's authors," the IISS said. "The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian
D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a
conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate."
In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses
from the ongoing fighting with separatists are "several times smaller than the number reported by
[CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause" of Russian hacking.
But Ukraine's denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike's report. Its release was widely
covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic
campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group-Fancy Bear-and
versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.
"The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel
in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling," Alperovitch said
in a
December 22 story by The Washington Post .
The same day,
Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour : "And when you think about, well, who would be interested
in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic
Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that
would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."
Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center
in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights:
Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was
the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left
CrowdStrike last year.
CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA's written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch
canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA's Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman
Ilina Dimitrova defended the company's conclusions.
In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar
with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed
Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike's conclusions.
The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.
If the company's analysis was "delusional" when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence
that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?
"... So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials. ..."
"... But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission. ..."
"... So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état. ..."
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. ..."
"... Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
""I did not have communications with the Russians," Mr. Sessions said in response to a question no one asked - and despite the
fact that he had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, at least twice during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The omission raised questions not only about his honesty, but also about why he would not disclose those meetings in the first
place."
That's neo-McCarthyism plain and simple. Congradulations! We got it. Now we need to fire all Russian sympathizers from the
government service, assuming that they exist. A very nice 17th century witch-hunt.
The only thing we do not have is resurrected Senator McCarthy (McCain is not good enough -- he does not drink).
So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should
be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials.
That means that the joke that Russia Foreign Ministry played on April 1 (Google it) about ordering Russian diplomat contact
for your political opponent proved to be true.
But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false
flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in
best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission.
And I am now not surprised that nobody investigated Comey for outsourcing (or forced to outsource by threats) the
"DNC hack" investigation to the very questionable firm with strong Ukrainian connections. Which might well be hired to perform
the hack and blame it on Russian to hide Seth Rich story.
If Trump would not be such an idiot, he would site this as a reason of firing Comey (gross unprofessionalism and criminal negligence)
and the level of fear in Clinton Mafia after that might help him to survive.
The truth is that FBI never has any access to DNC computers. None. Unlike in case of Hillary emailgate, they never were in
possession of actual hardware. And they never explored Ukrainian connection, so to speak. They took all results from CrowdStrike
investigation at face value.
So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt
to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état.
The fighting against Russiagate is about the defense of remnants of Democracy in the USA.
Regurgitation of MSM stories, like Fred is doing, does not add much value to this blog. It is essentially a propaganda exercise.
If your urge to share them is too strong, as Mr.Bill mentioned a simple link would be enough (actually the desire to read on this
topic NYT might be considered as an early sign of dementia, or Alzheimer)
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence
of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had
to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I
am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the
short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought
processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also
get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians,
so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot.
Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion
of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint
on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
"... "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access." ..."
"... "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" ..."
"... "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016." ..."
"... Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia." ..."
"... Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents. ..."
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the
President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate
of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware
that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY:"In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct
access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR:"Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY:"It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had
gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn
Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence
community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief
the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from
Consortium News .
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
"... "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access." ..."
"... "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" ..."
"... "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016." ..."
"... Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia." ..."
"... Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents. ..."
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the
President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate
of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware
that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY:"In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct
access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR:"Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY:"It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had
gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn
Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence
community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief
the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from
Consortium News .
"... So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials. ..."
"... But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission. ..."
"... So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état. ..."
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. ..."
"... Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
""I did not have communications with the Russians," Mr. Sessions said in response to a question no one asked - and despite the
fact that he had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, at least twice during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The omission raised questions not only about his honesty, but also about why he would not disclose those meetings in the first
place."
That's neo-McCarthyism plain and simple. Congradulations! We got it. Now we need to fire all Russian sympathizers from the
government service, assuming that they exist. A very nice 17th century witch-hunt.
The only thing we do not have is resurrected Senator McCarthy (McCain is not good enough -- he does not drink).
So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should
be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials.
That means that the joke that Russia Foreign Ministry played on April 1 (Google it) about ordering Russian diplomat contact
for your political opponent proved to be true.
But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false
flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in
best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission.
And I am now not surprised that nobody investigated Comey for outsourcing (or forced to outsource by threats) the
"DNC hack" investigation to the very questionable firm with strong Ukrainian connections. Which might well be hired to perform
the hack and blame it on Russian to hide Seth Rich story.
If Trump would not be such an idiot, he would site this as a reason of firing Comey (gross unprofessionalism and criminal negligence)
and the level of fear in Clinton Mafia after that might help him to survive.
The truth is that FBI never has any access to DNC computers. None. Unlike in case of Hillary emailgate, they never were in
possession of actual hardware. And they never explored Ukrainian connection, so to speak. They took all results from CrowdStrike
investigation at face value.
So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt
to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état.
The fighting against Russiagate is about the defense of remnants of Democracy in the USA.
Regurgitation of MSM stories, like Fred is doing, does not add much value to this blog. It is essentially a propaganda exercise.
If your urge to share them is too strong, as Mr.Bill mentioned a simple link would be enough (actually the desire to read on this
topic NYT might be considered as an early sign of dementia, or Alzheimer)
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence
of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had
to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I
am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the
short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought
processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also
get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians,
so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot.
Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion
of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint
on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
Before I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm
hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its
conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its
analysis into question upon further inspection.
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "
Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the
White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process.
It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking
the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content
of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that
is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services
(RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does,
that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to
find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to
the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that
the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith
in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own
analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC
hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers
but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck
an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what
it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting
that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming
to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly
considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled,
Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S.
cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential
election.
The
CrowdStrike report, released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed
any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses
and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to
link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder
Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.
How is this not the biggest story in America right now?
Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company's report
"delusional"
in a Facebook
post . CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially
were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike
misinterpreted their data and hadn't reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.
In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.
"The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong
solely to the report's authors," the IISS said. "The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian
D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a
conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate."
In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses
from the ongoing fighting with separatists are "several times smaller than the number reported by
[CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause" of Russian hacking.
But Ukraine's denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike's report. Its release was widely
covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic
campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group-Fancy Bear-and
versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.
"The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel
in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling," Alperovitch said
in a
December 22 story by The Washington Post .
The same day,
Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour : "And when you think about, well, who would be interested
in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic
Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that
would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."
Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center
in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights:
Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was
the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left
CrowdStrike last year.
CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA's written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch
canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA's Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman
Ilina Dimitrova defended the company's conclusions.
In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar
with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed
Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike's conclusions.
The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.
If the company's analysis was "delusional" when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence
that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?
"... Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. ..."
"... He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn, The Hill]. ..."
"... Inside baseball thing here about the rules and regulations about official notes to the file. In FDA the rules on note taking are under 21 CFR (code of federal regulation) 10.70 and I am sure they would be the same for any other Federal agency OR even much more strict in the DoJ BECAUSE it is just common sense that the other person gets to see if what you have written is correct. Indeed, I have always thought the idea that FBI notes should be accorded some special deference because FBI note takers are better or more honest is JUST ABSURD. Sorry for the rant ..."
"Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard
operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president.
Their "revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight.
He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would
have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark
Penn, The Hill].
One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with perceptive,
well-reasoned arguments.
==================================================== Inside baseball thing here about the rules and regulations about official notes to the file. In FDA the rules on note taking
are under 21 CFR (code of federal regulation) 10.70 and I am sure they would be the same for any other Federal agency OR even
much more strict in the DoJ BECAUSE it is just common sense that the other person gets to see if what you have written is correct.
Indeed, I have always thought the idea that FBI notes should be accorded some special deference because FBI note takers are better
or more honest is JUST ABSURD. Sorry for the rant
21 CFR Sec. 10.70 Documentation of significant decisions in administrative file.
(a) This section applies to every significant FDA decision on any matter under the laws administered by the Commissioner, whether
it is raised formally, for example, by a petition or informally, for example, by correspondence.
(b) FDA employees responsible for handling a matter are responsible for insuring the completeness of the administrative file
relating to it. The file must contain:
(1) Appropriate documentation of the basis for the decision, including relevant evaluations, reviews, memoranda, letters, opinions
of consultants, minutes of meetings, and other pertinent written documents; and
(2) The recommendations and decisions of individual employees, including supervisory personnel, responsible for handling the
matter.
(i) The recommendations and decisions are to reveal significant controversies or differences of opinion and their resolution.
(ii) An agency employee working on a matter and, consistent with the prompt completion of other assignments, an agency employee
who has worked on a matter may record individual views on that matter in a written memorandum, which is to be placed in the file.
(c) A written document placed in an administrative file must:
(1) Relate to the factual, scientific, legal or related issues under consideration;
(2) Be dated and signed by the author;
(3) Be directed to the file, to appropriate supervisory personnel, and to other appropriate employees, and show all persons
to whom copies were sent;
(5) If it records the views, analyses, recommendations, or decisions of an agency employee in addition to the author, be given
to the other employees ; and
(6) Once completed (i.e., typed in final form, dated, and signed) not be altered or removed. Later additions to or revisions
of the document must be made in a new document.
(d) Memoranda or other documents that are prepared by agency employees and are not in the administrative file have no status
or effect.
(e) FDA employees working on a matter have access to the administrative file on that matter, as appropriate for the conduct
of their work. FDA employees who have worked on a matter have access to the administrative file on that matter so long as attention
to their assignments is not impeded. Reasonable restrictions may be placed upon access to assure proper cataloging and storage
of documents, the availability of the file to others, and the completeness of the file for review.
==========================================
For example, I now HAVE IN MY HAND, a written list from Lambert saying he will send me 205 cases of beer, and good Russian
beer, not Budweiser. I wrote it – it MUST be true!!!! SHOW ME THE BEER!!!!!!!!!!!!
"... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
"... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
"... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
"... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
"... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
"... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
"... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
"... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
"... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
"... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
"... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
"... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
"... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration
is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the
sovereign and its own restoration.
Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces
are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart.
A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.
That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret.
Few deny it.
Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under
oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.
Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.
Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation,
that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking
of the DNC.
Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president.
And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend
and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.
As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that
look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have
been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."
Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia
after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State
Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for
sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives
at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected,
collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.
"It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week
of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal
policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.
Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government,
and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks
are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.
The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real
criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy
a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.
Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.
While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump
associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.
On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump
associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies
of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack
Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's
conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia
for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on
Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there
primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before
he was canned.
Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus.
Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.
Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such
as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our
days are numbered.
Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump
and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.
Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including
his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little
crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even
stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of
the sovereign and its own restoration.
We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump
is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.
He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him.
He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress,
especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start
pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs
to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real
intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order
allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it.
I can't believe he hasn't done this.
Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter.
He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic
or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a
foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend
to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic
achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run
the congressional business.
Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It
was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to
destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth
defending?
Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male
Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who
will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .
" will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."
As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep
State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive
order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request
it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.
I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this
way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly
or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of
the leakers.
Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask
himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has
never been his strong suit.
Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut
it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency
covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in
Afghanistan and Middle East.
Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up
and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and
mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting
zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for
a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.
I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not
on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a
PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists
and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add
that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will
join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see
much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as
time goes by.
It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and
hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.
He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his
time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't
seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.
His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing
to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence
is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs
is not warranted.
"Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.
@MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he
"does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a
Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized
as his signature achievement.
You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really
want. But its clear you really don't want.
I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How
many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,
BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.
And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say,
and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000
500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including
you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts
it could happen here, now who's the idiot?
How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the
Presidency,
I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into
my motives.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be
recognized as his signature achievement.
All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this
outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with
savings in material cost and lives.
I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't
think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest
US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.
So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary
to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.
His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch
investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e.
end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave
up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.
Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as
a snipers nest.
@Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war
requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions,
government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.
Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing
is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.
In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help
bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately,
their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats?
We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.
Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even
a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary.
Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.
@MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually
be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others
to be just that??
"... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
"... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
"... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
"... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
"... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
"... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
"... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir
Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017
| 7080
90
Dear NBC News Team,
Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic
level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.
A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television
channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One
was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that
you put on air for the American audience. (
Watch here, beginning 4 minutes
into the program .)
The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said
was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political
opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut
to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed
by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations
point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to
question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges.
He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas
to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.
In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact
a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion
in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.
Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is
coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh
after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes,
ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.
have a nice day
Gilbert Doctorow
Brussels
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book
Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States
Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.
The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of
any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended
to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be
tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war
with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of
office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do
with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out
all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian"
who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch
as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides
of the oceans.
You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles.
Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those
of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said.
see more
Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why
Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the
beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read
a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent
a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going
to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to
intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ...
and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill
even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War
against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped
off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing
so ... see more
rosewood11
Peter Paul 1950 •
5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned
the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never
seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right?
see more
One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of
all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first
heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High
Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through
the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that
there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all
the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation
... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see
more
Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told,
says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady
but has to tow- the-line. tom
•
6 days ago
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be".
Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an
interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya
Pypkin •
6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification
by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but
smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still
alive regret.
Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was
not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and
important things while life was stable and predictable.
Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial
front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth
to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while
losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant.
AMHants •
6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could
be blamed on Russia!...
But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast
for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts,
because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could
portend for Americans, is mounting daily...
Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what
the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full
and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for
a journalist this Kelly is!
The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just
a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens
have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist,
neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization,
outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change
things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything
anywhere. Robert Keith •
6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking
head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV
mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to
the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very
skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular
basis it seems.
If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across
very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his
performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.
Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this
wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to
do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during
the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".
No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any
way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know
it already.
The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it
is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere.
see more
"... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."
*Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd
arrived in his 2001 book "Aprčs L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du systčme américain" ("After
the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily
on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors:
https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.
Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be
thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view
point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native
language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew
a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.
We are all wondering, of course "when". ?
It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled
with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a
massive physical break down and die.
It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when.
Nofearorfavor
Isabella Jones •
5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition
was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However
found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping
the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly
tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...
My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long
the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only
allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would
be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a
day with her.
In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings,
etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling'
as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect
Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it.
see more
Unlike
in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news
in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg.
see more
nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.
Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the
west.
Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten,
they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping
rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is
the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more
Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before
these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out
of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump
himself. Playing the Elder.
James Clapper, former Director of the CIA who lied directly to Congress about whether it was spying
on American citizens has very recently said to the Australian Press Club that "I think you compare
the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we're confronting now." and
"Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don't know the answer to that. I think it's vital,
though, we find that out.".
As has become textbook with modern press roll-overs, they are trying to substitute momentum for
evidence, and achieve critical mass without having to cite any real facts you could hang your
hat on later. Everyone involved will shake their heads as if coming out of a dream, and say, "Well,
we all thought "
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes.
FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".
If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real
possibility and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come
to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument
of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping
our European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is
actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway
robbery policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late,
and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half
a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian
"war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle
of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only
the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after
it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe
in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled
Trump election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different
from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics),
who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya,
Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in
Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to
this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete
control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict,
and the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal
of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government
in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist
forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars,
wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool
enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
"... Trump has been captured by the Deep State and the mainstream Zio-media. First, the implacable Left-Hollywood-Zionist axis unnerved, abused, and punked Trump out. Then they and their minions harassed and spooked him. Insurrection was in the air–ever as the President was being sworn into office! ..."
"... Has any newly-elected president has ever been treated so disdainfully and with such widespread contempt? It was very unsettling. Then Trump blinked. After that he caved. Now he is moving rapidly 'towards the center'. Unfortunately, this 'centrism' will require a Mideast war. The Donald has morphed. He is now part neocon and part Wall St. errand-boy. ..."
"... The hysteria over 'Russian interference' is a complete fabrication. This very accusation turns reality upside down. But it persists. What's going on? These illusions are pure Zionist subterfuge. Trump's now their boy. ..."
"... First up: Israel's foes. (Syria, Iran and Russia.) But who cares? Why should this matter? As Bibi Netanyahu observed: "America can be moved". And Bibi's quite right. Therefore, Trump's pro-Zionist militancy is being sold as something else ('war on terror') even though it is being championed by the usual Zionist cheerleaders in media and in government. Pro-Zionist alliances however radiate in odd directions. This explains Washington's (and our news media's) rising love affair with the House of Saud. Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel. ..."
"... For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli destabilization campaign. (At least for now.) ..."
"... In any case, US aid will flow immensely, unconditionally and without interruption to glorious 'democratic' Israel. ..."
Trump has been captured by the Deep State and the mainstream Zio-media. First, the implacable
Left-Hollywood-Zionist axis unnerved, abused, and punked Trump out. Then they and their minions
harassed and spooked him. Insurrection was in the air–ever as the President was being sworn into
office!
Has any newly-elected president has ever been treated so disdainfully and with such widespread
contempt? It was very unsettling. Then Trump blinked. After that he caved. Now he is moving rapidly
'towards the center'. Unfortunately, this 'centrism' will require a Mideast war. The Donald has
morphed. He is now part neocon and part Wall St. errand-boy.
Trump–who campaigned on a populist, pro-American, non-interventionist platform–has his new,
improved sights set on toppling/destabilizing Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Haven't we seen this song
and dance before?
Yes we have, despite the fact that these distant, non-nuclear states do not threaten US interests
and do not threaten US security in any way, shape, or form.
Huge lies have become 'facts'.
Russia's alleged influence in our presidential election, for instance, is not even a fraction
of what Israel can impose almost effortlessly.
The hysteria over 'Russian interference' is a complete fabrication. This very accusation
turns reality upside down. But it persists. What's going on? These illusions are pure Zionist
subterfuge. Trump's now their boy.
The wall with Mexico will just have to wait; as will Trump's infrastructure build. Gotta take
out Assad first! After all, Syria shares a disputed border with Israel. That's important!
First up: Israel's foes. (Syria, Iran and Russia.) But who cares? Why should this matter?
As Bibi Netanyahu observed: "America can be moved". And Bibi's quite right. Therefore, Trump's
pro-Zionist militancy is being sold as something else ('war on terror') even though it is being
championed by the usual Zionist cheerleaders in media and in government. Pro-Zionist alliances
however radiate in odd directions. This explains Washington's (and our news media's) rising love
affair with the House of Saud. Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2)
have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3)
are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier
military status vis-a-vis Israel.
For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family
is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli
destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)
But alliances can change rapidly, especially when anti-Zionist regimes rise and persist. Then
they get targeted. (See: 'Saddam's Iraq'. See: 'Gadaffi's Libya'.) Up next: Syria, Lebanon and
Iran.
In any case, US aid will flow immensely, unconditionally and without interruption to glorious
'democratic' Israel.
BTW- while it's widely known (and continuously recalled) that Hearst and his newspapers promoted
the Spanish-American war (as Mr. Giraldi notes above) what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst
and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. 'Citizen Kane' and
the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact. In
fact, it was none other than Joseph Pulitzer (for whom the pretentious and politicized journalistic
prizes are named) whose newspapers helped spearhead the international campaign for America's unnecessary
and tragic entry into WWI.
Pulitzer was as influential as Hearst – and every bit as sensational. But Pulitzer was both
anti-German and very pro-US-intervention in Europe. Unlike Hearst, Pulitzer demonized Imperial
Germany long before the Great War began and it was Pulitzer – not Hearst–who helped sanitize America's
pre-war efforts (before WWII) to aid the British and violate laws that sought to preserve US neutrality.
Like Hearst, Pulitzer was an artful media demagogue; but it was Pulitzer – not Hearst – who
used his skills and power to steer America into the two greatest political conflicts ever seen.
Joseph Pulitzer was also Jewish.
A friend of the president says Donald Trump is
considering "terminating" special counsel Robert Mueller.
Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy tells Judy Woodruff of "PBS
NewsHour": "I think he's considering perhaps terminating
the special counsel. I think he's weighing that option."
The White House did not immediately respond to
questions about Ruddy's claims.
Under current Justice Department regulations, such a
firing would have to be done by Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' deputy, Rod Rosenstein, not the president-
though those regulations could theoretically be set aside.
...
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fired back at reports that
President Trump is considering firing FBI special counsel
Robert Mueller with a simple message to the president:
"Don't waste our time." ...
Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff
If President fired Bob Mueller, Congress would
immediately re-establish independent counsel and appoint
Bob Mueller. Don't waste our time.
Trump is cray cray. He is definitely guilty of something
big involving Russia. Maybe the Republicans will in fact
move to impeach him and we'll get President Pence.
IMHO only neocons want Trump's removal. And it was them
who instigated Russiagate using Gene Sharp recipes of
color revolution. Classic, textbook attempt to
de-legitimize elections.
But neocon's Russiagate "color revolution" is very
dangerous for the USA move. Which suggests that they lost
their minds (which is very true about McCain and Hillary,
to name a few).
Please note that in 2014 the USA population was already
extremely anti-Russia biased: 64% of BBC poll respondents
viewed Russia negatively(not that I trust BBC in this area
;-). But now the percentage might either approach this
estimate or be even higher.
This is a recipe for war between those two countries.
BTW neoconservatism is neoliberal interpretation of
Trotskyism, which advocates "Permanent War".
Like neofascism it glories militarism (in the form of
New American Militarism as described by Professor
Bacevich), emphasizes confrontation, and regime change in
countries hostile to the interests of global corporation
and which are a barrier of spread of neoliberalism and
extension of global, US dominated neoliberal empire.
"Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating
procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. Their
"revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight. He did not inform his superiors after any of
the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him
and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn,
The Hill]. One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with
perceptive, well-reasoned arguments.
"Amid Comey chaos, lessons from the history of America's secret police" [DigiBoston].
Worth noting that the FBI wasn't always iconic for liberals.
"Why Chris Ruddy floated the idea of firing Bob Mueller" [Chris Cillizza,
CNN]. "My (educated)
guess is that during his visit to the White House on Monday, Ruddy heard that Trump was considering firing Mueller. Ruddy thought,
rightly, that doing so would be an absolutely terrible political move. Rather than calling the President to tell him that, Ruddy
took to a medium where he knew Trump would listen: TV. We know from the 2016 campaign that Trump's advisers and friends would use
cable television appearances to send messages to Trump that he was simply not hearing in private conversations."
"Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known" [Bloomberg].
"Special counsel team members donated to Dems, FEC records show" [CNN]
.
"... Looks like Clinton mafia is playing va bank. May be because Clinton's desperate need to maintain their profile because they badly need the money to sustain their "shadow party" infrastructure. ..."
"... But if Russiagate proved to be false those who supported they all can be tried by Trump administration for sedition. ..."
"... Don't be so naďve. Russiagate is a color revolution. If it fails, those who tried to launch this color revolution should be tried for sedition. ..."
If the above happened Trump would have his defenders in his Party. They will be voted out of office
for their perfidy by voters and be forgotten if history is a guide.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty they may face consequences.
Looks like Clinton mafia is playing va bank. May be because Clinton's desperate need to maintain their profile because they badly need the
money to sustain their "shadow party" infrastructure.
And because "the Clinton clan" (people who financially depend on the Clintons) is so numerous
(Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants), that they form their own ecosystem.
But if Russiagate proved to be false those who supported they all can be tried by Trump administration
for sedition.
Trump refused to pursue "emailgate" (which was a blunder), but now I think he will not allow
Hillary to get off the hook.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection
against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement
of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority.
Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against
the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages
in or promotes the interests of sedition.
"I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty they may face consequences."
What are you talking about? The Russia/Trump connection has been made just not to the level of treason or Impeachment,
yet, and it may not rise to that level.
However, the Trump directed WH cover-up of Russian Election involvement has risen to the level
of Obstruction of Justice and only time will tell if the Republicans in Congress will Impeach
Trump and the Senate Convict. Geez, pay attention, get your facts ordered and don't make leaps of nonsense about DEMs doing
their jobs as the Loyal Opposition since the GOP Leadership refuses to do its job to protect the
nation, its people, and the US Constitution.
Forget RussiaGate for the moment. Forget James Comey's upcoming testimony before the Senate
intelligence committee. Forget all the conspiratorial speculation that Donald Trump is the
plaything of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In strictly foreign policy terms, Trump's election is not really working out so well for
the Kremlin. The sanctions against Russia are still in place, and Congress wants to make them
even more punitive. Nikki Haley is lambasting Putin and his policies from her perch at the
United Nations. Various investigations into the compromising ties of the Trump team represent
a significant speed bump in the administration's efforts to restart relations with Russia.
Thierry Meyssan thinks that Trump did not folded. This is a questionable assumption.
Notable quotes:
"... During the Summit of the Arabo-Muslim States, on 21 May in Riyadh, Donald Trump appealed to his interlocutors in general and Saudi Arabia in particular to break off all contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and to sever all ties with Islamic terrorism [ 2 ]. Aware that he was asking King Salman to give up his main army, he gifted him with a replacement arsenal worth 110 billion dollars. ..."
"... However, it does seem possible that France and Germany are beginning to clean up their services. It will take them a while. Donald Trump has still not been able to do so in his own administration. ..."
"... on 20 May in Jeddah, the Pentagon delivered arms to the jihadists, honouring a contract signed in the final days of the Presidential transition [ 7 ]. These new weapons include multiple rocket-launchers and Bulgarian OT-64 SKOT tanks. ..."
From the 3rd conference of the Friends of Syria, on 6 July 2012 in Paris, to the investiture of
President Trump, on 21 January 2017 in Washington, the United States, France and the United Kingdom
never ceased organising the war against Syria, while constantly pretending to be negotiating a political
resolution.
Over the last 16 years, and particularly during his Presidential electoral campaign, Donald Trump
has presented himself as a militant anti-imperialist. Contrary to what is claimed by his detractors,
the fact that he is a billionaire in no way compromises his political convictions.
Since he arrived at the White House [
1 ], President Trump
has had to fight against his own administration, of which 98% of the senior civil servants voted
Hillary Clinton, and also against the allied governments of his predecessor.
So, over the last four months, he has continued to follow his desire to liberate his country and
the world by instigating a series of actions which his adversaries either deform or present as contradictory.
During the Summit of the Arabo-Muslim States, on 21 May in Riyadh, Donald Trump appealed to
his interlocutors in general and Saudi Arabia in particular to break off all contacts with the Muslim
Brotherhood and to sever all ties with Islamic terrorism [
2 ]. Aware that he
was asking King Salman to give up his main army, he gifted him with a replacement arsenal worth 110
billion dollars.
Despite the bursts of generosity of the King and his court, at the end of the summit, Saudi Arabia
published a declaration without prior approval by the other participants [
3 ]. This document
may be read as the announcement of the creation of an " Islamic Military Coalition ", an expansion
of the " Joint Arab Forces " whom we saw at work in Yemen. But it may also serve later as a justification
for Saudi occupation of regions of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere which had been liberated by Daesh.
At the Nato summit, on 25 May in Brussels, Donald Trump invited his allies to offer a minute of
silence before a fragment of the Berlin Wall and a piece of débris from the Twin Towers. Reminding
them that they had accepted – in the name of Article 5 of the Treaty - the principle of the fight
against terrorism during the attacks of 9/11, he obliged them to redirect the aims of the Alliance
[ 4 ]. It will of
course maintain its anti-Russian function, but is now dedicated to the eradication of the jihadists
which it has so far been coordinating from the base at Izmir (Turkey). As well as this, he compelled
them to share their information concerning terrorist organisations via a Coordinated Intelligence
Cell.
At the G7 Summit in Taormina, 26 May, Donald Trump managed to strong-arm his allies into making
a declaration " against terrorism and violent extremism " [
5 ]. In reality,
his partners only accepted the agreement in order to prevent the spilling over of terrorism to the
West from the areas where they organise it, finance it and supervise it. In any case, the G7 began
a process aimed at drying up not only the financing of terrorism, but also that of violent extremism,
in other words the Muslim Brotherhood, the source of terrorism.
This declaration was only possible in the context of the attack in Manchester perpetrated on 22
May, by the son of an M16 double agent, both an ex-member of Mouamar Kadhafi's security services
and of Al-Qaďda [ 6
]. But it is clear that the British still have no intention of depriving themselves of the Muslim
Brotherhood.
However, it does seem possible that France and Germany are beginning to clean up their services.
It will take them a while. Donald Trump has still not been able to do so in his own administration.
Thus, on 20 May in Jeddah, the Pentagon delivered arms to the jihadists, honouring a contract
signed in the final days of the Presidential transition [
7 ]. These new weapons
include multiple rocket-launchers and Bulgarian OT-64 SKOT tanks. Thierry Meyssan
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
"... He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail. ..."
"... He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool. ..."
"... I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen. ..."
"... Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated. ..."
Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing--as that NSA memo wasn't a smoking
gun and added nothing new (and further evidence that the intelligence community would label a
Wikipedia article as "Top Secret")
And Reality had awful/naive "operational security." Anyone who read a few John LeCarre/Tom
Clancy novels would've done better at avoiding detection.
What? Monica has not had an easy time of it. Yes, her choice, but still.
I don't see how you come by comparing what Monica Lewinsky did (which in no way compromised
state secrets) with what Reality Winner did (I don't think she compromised state secrets, but
she published what I thought was called a "Top Secret" document).
Two entirely different things. What's the connection? That they both have lady parts?
Her father was a fairly large bundler of donations for the democratic party and her step dad
was former head of voice of america she did not grow up in a family with any real financial stress
and there has been no suggestion anywhere she has had to wait tables one does not get internships
at the wh without some pull
What does that have to do with what Reality Winner did? The initiating email in this thread
discusses Reality Winner and the issue about her release of a top secret document.
Somehow that devolves into some weird slut shaming of Monica Lewinsky? WTF?
Again: why are we even discussing Monica Lewinsky in a thread that is about Reality Winner?
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that
the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single
source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian
hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted
it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect.
OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians
not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites
the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have
been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of
a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated,
turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen
documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on
Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton.
Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge
favor or that he could blackmail.
He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone
by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by
a mobsters tool.
I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented
to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence
as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical
skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen.
"especially the explosive testimony of former FBI director James Comey"
I find this downright amazing. Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was
correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey.
But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated.
"... Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write. ..."
"Opinion: 5 alternative plutocrats to run America better than Trump" [
MarketWatch
].
Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Diane Hendricks. Well .
"The 9th Circuit's travel ban ruling declares the president's Twitter
feed is a legally binding stream of consciousness" [
Slate
].
But what if it's self-contradictory, as bullshit often is?
"In recent months, leading Democrats from national chairman Tom Perez on
down have been unleashing f-bombs, s-bombs and everything in between as they
try to rally their party to 'resist.' And New York's junior senator seems to
be leading the charge" [
New
York Post
]. This descent to the vernacular kinda, sorta worked in
2003-2006 for "foul-mouthed bloggers of the left," as David Broder called
them; profanity was a proof of authenticity, of boldness. I doubt that will
work for Democrats today.
"Trump voters are more informed about the elites than are the elites
about them. Trump voters see the elites on network and cable news and
late-night talk shows. They encounter them in the dominant print media. And
they take in the elite sensibility through feature films, and television
sitcoms and dramas. In contrast, members of the so-called knowledge class
seldom acquire more than a passing acquaintance with those in "flyover
country," their dismissive term for the approximately 2,600 of 3,100
counties-or 84 percent of the geographic United States- where Donald Trump
bested Hillary Clinton. Knowledge of how the other half lives and thinks is
one glaring hole of elite education" [
RealClearPolitics
].
"
Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize,
also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are
often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias,
rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write.
The Brookings fellows nevertheless insist that career politicians, party
officials, policy experts, and lawyers bring knowledge of institutional
arrangements, complex trade-offs, and technical detail that are essential to
good government." The report: "More professionalism, less populism: How
voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it" (PDF) [
Brookings
Institute
].
UPDATE "Welcome to the era of the 'bot' as political boogeyman" [Philip
Bump,
WaPo
]. "These stories, though, including the Daily News's, tend to be
embraced for the same reason that Superman's monsters were so chilling: The
threat is novel and not well understood. There's another level here, too.
Assuming that vocal Trump supporters on social media are not real people
reinforces an important political effect as well."
"... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
"... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
"... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
"... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
"... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
"... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to
go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if
their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed
NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian
President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking
Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.
In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US
government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all
are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is
so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.
For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved
in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI
and NSA had been "handpicked."
On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan
confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.
But
those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to
repeat the false claim. In
comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a
flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator
and Secretary of State, is hard to get."
A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies
in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her,
replying instead:
"They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have
talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed
me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably
better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he
and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."
As I noted in a
Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge
that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president
has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic
emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has
been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.
"At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting
or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis
added]
Explaining the Technology
More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables
hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the
hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will
think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and
subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions.
"
Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing
the source of cyber attacks.
"Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to
put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia.
Can't you imagine it happening? I can.
"Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination
was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule
it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while
making a reference to Russia in the process. "
Kelly: "Let's move on."
However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well
not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had
created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did
it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).
The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the
"Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required
the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money
and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians
hacked into Democratic Party emails.
In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually
one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper
– the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan
acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.
There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable
discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist
on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own
proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.
The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think
tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council
senior fellow and the
co-founder of Crowdstrike.
Strange Oversight
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment
battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to
insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy
to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed
on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee
Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever
have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide
you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have
access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class
entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the
time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand
the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps,
NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might
have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who
very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high
esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an
oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman
on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total
of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium
News .
"... The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover
a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from
demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more.
..."
"... Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's
determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can? ..."
"... Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly
step out of the spotlight? ..."
"... Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty
to keep the money machine going? ..."
"... Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020?
I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know,
Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile
to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse
to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes. ..."
The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing
cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is
the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens
vote for its candidates any more.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brain trust that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty that there will be a whole lot of dejected resistance members
out there who will finally realize either that they have been fed a load of crap or, if they truly
believe the mythology, that the party leadership was too cowardly to get to the truth. Either
way, good luck getting those folks all revved up for 2018.
What is Hillary's endgame here, anyway? I had little use for Al Gore back
in 2000, but dang if his slinking offstage obediently and meekly and (above all) quietly doesn't
look downright dignified compared to HRC's refusal to willfully do the same. And I'm beginning
to get the feeling there's more to this than just her ego at work. The possibilities as I see
'em (feel free to add to the list if you wish):
a.) Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square
that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can?
b.) Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly
step out of the spotlight?
c.) Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political
dynasty to keep the money machine going?
d.) Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House
come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring
chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan
was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of
vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain,
fer Chrissakes.
Hillary doesn't do anything unless she stands to gain something, so I assume she has her reasons
for not riding off into the sunset. What are they?
I think she has to continue raising her profile and remain in public view. Otherwise her grifting
machine grinds to a complete halt. All the people who depend on the Clintons are so numerous,
(Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants) that they form their own ecosystem.
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S.
attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over
"tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved
from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but
Russians, Iranians and others operate.
In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on
opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise
under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something
awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay
the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.
The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued "
Human Slaughterhouse:
Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government
executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons
incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack
on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though
neither of them is credible.
[3]
Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is
based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent
of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse
. See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research,
May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306
.)
The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably
negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based
on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of
others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,
Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017),
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA
officer Philip Giraldi);
Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's
Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/
(The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf
and the second, an addendum to the first, is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view
);
aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/
. (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the
[UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their
claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and
more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html
.").
It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued,
the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.
Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were
hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election.
It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last
election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know
pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking
and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play
to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then
explained the difference between leaking and hacking.
[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/
.
There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern
and William Binney observed:
The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha"
moment, as President
Donald Trump said he had fired
FBI Director
James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up
story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others
looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with
Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on
no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually
claim to find, in light of this:
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the
agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look
like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example.
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA.
Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls
the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents
required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that
amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState
has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for
'proving' the Russians hacked."
[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.
The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times
carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad
government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered
political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs
in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior
to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after
meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan
capital.
I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate
insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect,
in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage
in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment,
would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:
"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were
not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for
one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,'
he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall
and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a
crematorium,' he said."
Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and
I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise,
took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:
"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May
23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign
ally, into backing away from him."
Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on
the Hudson typically takes.
[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily
Fox News program:]
"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon.
The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more
consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which
we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests
on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."
Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian
diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr.
Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic
eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian
president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:
Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon
in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning
language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy
and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height
of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by
Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media
voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices
fresher, more diverse and more agile.
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears
at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .
I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best
to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia.
This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries
of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which
can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition
and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective,
form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.
In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign
policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which
the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful
combination:
"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually,
by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of
gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent
even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting
their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley
Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the
escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance
to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns,
stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have
posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!
Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971
and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been
a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation,
and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been
a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was
posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY
.
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S.
attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over
"tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved
from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but
Russians, Iranians and others operate.
In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on
opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise
under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something
awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay
the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.
The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued "
Human Slaughterhouse:
Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government
executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons
incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack
on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though
neither of them is credible.
[3]
Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is
based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent
of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse
. See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research,
May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306
.)
The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably
negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based
on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of
others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,
Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017),
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA
officer Philip Giraldi);
Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's
Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/
(The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf
and the second, an addendum to the first, is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view
);
aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/
. (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the
[UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their
claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and
more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html
.").
It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued,
the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.
Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were
hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election.
It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last
election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know
pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking
and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play
to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then
explained the difference between leaking and hacking.
[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/
.
There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern
and William Binney observed:
The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha"
moment, as President
Donald Trump said he had fired
FBI Director
James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up
story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others
looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with
Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on
no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually
claim to find, in light of this:
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the
agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look
like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example.
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA.
Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls
the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents
required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that
amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState
has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for
'proving' the Russians hacked."
[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.
The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times
carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad
government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered
political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs
in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior
to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after
meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan
capital.
I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate
insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect,
in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage
in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment,
would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:
"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were
not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for
one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,'
he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall
and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a
crematorium,' he said."
Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and
I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise,
took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:
"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May
23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign
ally, into backing away from him."
Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on
the Hudson typically takes.
[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily
Fox News program:]
"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon.
The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more
consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which
we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests
on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."
Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian
diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr.
Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic
eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian
president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:
Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon
in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning
language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy
and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height
of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by
Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media
voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices
fresher, more diverse and more agile.
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears
at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .
I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best
to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia.
This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries
of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which
can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition
and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective,
form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.
In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign
policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which
the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful
combination:
"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually,
by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of
gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent
even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting
their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley
Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the
escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance
to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns,
stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have
posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!
Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971
and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been
a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation,
and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been
a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was
posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY
.
"... Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
Democrats, liberals and some progressives might be feeling a little perplexed over what has happened
to Russiagate, the story that pounded Donald Trump every day since his election last November-until
April 4, that is.
On April 4, Trump fully capitulated to the neoconservative bash-Russia narrative amid
dubious claims about a chemical attack in Syria. On April 6, Trump fired off 59 Tomahawk missiles
at a Syrian airbase; he also restored the neocon demand for "regime change" in Syria; and he alleged
that Russia was possibly complicit in the supposed chemical attack.
Since Trump took those actions-in accordance with the neocon desires for more "regime change"
in the Middle East and a costly New Cold War with Russia-Russiagate has almost vanished from the
news.
I did find
a little story in the lower right-hand corner of page A12 of Saturday's New York Times about
a still-eager Democratic congressman, Mike Quigley of Illinois, who spent a couple of days in Cyprus
which attracted his interest because it is a known site for Russian money-laundering, but he seemed
to leave more baffled than when he arrived.
Yet, given all the hype and hullabaloo over Russiagate, the folks who were led to believe that
the vague and amorphous allegations were "bigger than Watergate" might now be feeling a little used.
It appears they may have been sucked into a conspiracy frenzy in which the Establishment exploited
their enthusiasm over the "scandal" in a clever maneuver to bludgeon an out-of-step new President
back into line.
If that's indeed the case, perhaps the most significant success of the Russiagate ploy was the
ouster of Trump's original National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was seen as a key proponent
of a New Détente with Russia, and his replacement by General H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite,
retired Gen. David Petraeus.
McMaster was viewed as the key player in arranging the April 6 missile strike on Syria and in
preparing a questionable "intelligence assessment" on April 11 to justify the rush to judgment. Although
McMaster's four-page white paper has been accepted as gospel by the mainstream U.S. news media,
its many weaknesses have been noted by actual experts, such as MIT national security and technology
professor Theodore Postol.
How Washington Works
But the way Official Washington works is that Trump was made to look weak when he argued for a
more cooperative and peaceful relationship with Russia. Hillary Clinton dubbed him Vladimir Putin's
"puppet" and "Saturday Night Live" portrayed Trump as in thrall to a bare-chested Putin. More significantly,
front-page stories every morning and cable news segments every night created the impression of a
compromised U.S. President in Putin's pocket.
Conversely, Trump was made to look strong when he fired off missiles against a Syrian airbase
and talked tough about Russian guilt. Neocon commentator Charles Krauthammer
praised Trump's shift as demonstrating that "America is back."
Trump further enhanced his image for toughness when his military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive
Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," on some caves in Afghanistan.
While the number of casualties inflicted by the blast was unclear, Trump benefited from the admiring
TV and op-ed commentaries about him finally acting "presidential."
But the real test of political courage is to go against the grain in a way that may be unpopular
in the short term but is in the best interests of the United States and the world community in the
longer term.
In that sense, Trump seeking peaceful cooperation with Russia-even amid the intense anti-Russian
propaganda of the past several years-required actual courage, while launching missiles and dropping
bombs might win praise but actually make the U.S. position in the world weaker.
Trump, however, saw his fledgling presidency crumbling under the daily barrage of Russiagate,
even though
there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election
and there wasn't even clear evidence that Russia was behind the disclosure of Democratic emails,
via WikiLeaks, during the campaign.
Still, the combined assault from the Democrats, the neocons and the mainstream media forced Trump
to surrender his campaign goal of achieving a more positive relationship with Russia and greater
big-power collaboration in the fight against terrorism.
For Trump, the incessant chatter about Russiagate was like a dripping water torture. The thin-skinned
Trump fumed at his staff and twittered messages aimed at changing the narrative, such as accusing
President Obama of "wiretapping" Trump Tower. But nothing worked.
However, once Trump waved the white flag by placing his foreign policy under the preferred banner
of the neoconservatives, the Russiagate pressure stopped. The op-ed pages suddenly were hailing his
"decisiveness." If you were a neocon, you might say about Russiagate: Mission accomplished!
Russiagate's Achievements
Besides whipping Trump into becoming a more compliant politician, Russiagate could claim some
other notable achievements. For instance, it spared the national Democrats from having to confront
their own failures in Campaign 2016 by diverting responsibility for the calamity of Trump's election.
Instead of Democratic leaders taking responsibility for picking a dreadful candidate, ignoring
the nation's anti-establishment mood, and failing to offer any kind of inspiring message, the national
Democrats could palm off the blame on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
Thus, rather than looking in the mirror and trying to figure out how to correct their deep-seated
problems, the national Democrats could instead focus on a quixotic tilting at Trump's impeachment.
Many on the Left joined in this fantasy because they have been so long without a Movement that
the huge post-inaugural "pussy hat" marches were a temptation that they couldn't resist. Russiagate
became the fuel to keep the "Movement" bandwagon rolling. #Resistance!
It didn't matter that the "scandal"-the belief that Russia somehow conspired with Trump to rig
the U.S. presidential election-amounted to
a bunch of informational dots that didn't connect.
Russiagate also taught the American "left" to learn to love McCarthyism since "proof" of guilt
pretty much amounted to having had contact with a Russian-and anyone who questioned the dubious factual
basis of the "scandal" was dismissed as a "Russian propagandist" or a "Moscow stooge" or a purveyor
of "fake news."
Another Russiagate winner was the mainstream news media which got a lot of mileage-and loads of
new subscription money-by pushing the convoluted conspiracy. The New York Times positioned itself
as the great protector of "truth" and The Washington Post adopted a melodramatic new slogan: "Democracy
Dies in Darkness."
ran a front-page article touting an anonymous Internet group called PropOrNot that identified
some 200 Internet news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other major sources of independent
journalism, as guilty of "Russian propaganda." Facts weren't needed; the accused had no chance for
rebuttal; the accusers even got to hide in the shadows; the smear was the thing.
The Post and the Times also conflated news outlets that dared to express skepticism toward claims
from the U.S. State Department with some entrepreneurial sites that trafficked in intentionally made-up
stories or "fake news" to make money.
To the Post and Times, there appeared to be no difference between questioning the official U.S.
narrative on, say, the Ukraine crisis and knowingly fabricating pretend news articles to get lots
of clicks. Behind the smokescreen of Russiagate, the mainstream U.S. news media took the position
that there was only one side to a story, what Official Washington chose to believe.
While it's likely that there will be some revival of Russiagate to avoid the appearance of a completely
manufactured scandal, the conspiracy theory's more significant near-term consequence could be that
it has taught Donald Trump a dangerous lesson.
If he finds himself in a tight spot,
the way
out is to start bombing some "enemy" halfway around the world. The next time, however, the target
might not be so willing to turn the other cheek. If, say, Trump launches a preemptive strike against
North Korea, the result could be a retaliatory nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan.
Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging
a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader
that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on
the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
For all his faults, Trump did offer a more temperate approach toward U.S.-Russian relations, which
also could have tamped down spending for nuclear and other strategic weapons and freed up some of
that money for infrastructure and other needs at home. But that was before Russiagate.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, "America's Stolen Narrative," either
in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
"... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon
his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in
Syria.
If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump
and use Pence as their tool instead.
Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.
The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment
is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment
to nullify the results of that election.
Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution"
scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding
of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?
This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter
much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to
engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary
and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.
Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other
"very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.
To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario
with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's
book.
Empire of Lies is a 2008
thriller novel
written by Andrew
Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by
Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in
an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it
by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the
term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined
as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample
of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha
proved to be a real artist in this art.
Notable quotes:
"... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
"... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
"... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
"... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
"... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
"... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
"... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
"... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
"... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it
is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.
One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition
of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values
- to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and
has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the
last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never
tires of pointing out, "We won."
In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr.
Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory
in America. This is a good thing.
The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump
and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the
election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to
task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration,
the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged
to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?
The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly,
in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression,
but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them.
He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and
got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made
him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.
Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is
rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites
people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong,
only winners and losers.
Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps
to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance
and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.
In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor
Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely
by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically,
that their politics are based on values and principles.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism,"
the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians
retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption,
they claim that the entire world is corrupt.
This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration
for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded
Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"
To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their
country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy
to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea
that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition
activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast
Asia.
Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate",
and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried
bc a Bill of rights argument would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo
(the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
"... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
"... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
"... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
"... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
"... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having
destroyed the Iraqi state?
4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic
dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem,
and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed
Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . .
.
It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there
in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers,
or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure
program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.
This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand
you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least
try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little
foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President
Donald J. Trump.
I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning
in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon
Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.
But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system
rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial
complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see
zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.
"4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar
price tag."
I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass
producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would
come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in
an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.
Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who
thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to
have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:
Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility
.Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not
[possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same.
In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."
Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:
Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic
and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance,
he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."
Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed
interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her
again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."
However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument
is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless
American interventionism:
"The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to
compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might
a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"
In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions
away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work
with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather
he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against
non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism,
but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.
An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration
see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have
a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired
Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."
Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First,
in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:
Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you
envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part
of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that
would negatively impact their "gravy train".
I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative?
Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational
to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC,
so our downside risk is limited too.
PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to
implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen
and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve
to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the
neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly,
that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some
more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone.
I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism
would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.
"Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance
needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."
"Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside
the point.
Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions
of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East,
beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.
I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs?
More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners?
More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US
payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness
and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll
get.
While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as
certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more
of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn,
though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done
nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings,
and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This
is not a Donald who wants to win.
"Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Nah.
Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever
new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to
pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements"
to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't
pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish
investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).
More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending
and obscene waste.
Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans
and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given
enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a
sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a
statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:
"Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal
with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how
they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."
Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released.
In Flynn's own words:
"Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.
The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia,
Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation
states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice
to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety
tyrants.
Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.
I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may
well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support"
a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination
of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on
the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting
of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has
"endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
from sglover:
"Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"
Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as
doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see
it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with
dynamite."
Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as
an absolute disaster.
I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders
didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries.
I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.
Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way,
I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter
:/
Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then
I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.
Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate
While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political
status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions,
represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"?
Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.
"... After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now. ..."
"... TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. ..."
"... The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine wrote in The Baffler ..."
"... Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as all but incontrovertible. ..."
"... In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions. ..."
"... Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January, Comey testified that the FBI had been denied access to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials told reporters , "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated." ..."
"... Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching certainty - despite the fact that it was forced to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation of placing the blame on Russia was false." ..."
"... Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts" who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR, announced last month that it had been valued at one billion dollars. ..."
Claims of "Russian interference" have been ubiquitous in U.S. political discourse for almost a full year now; these often amount
to a mélange of allegations ranging from "hacking" to "influence campaigns" to "online trolls" sent by the Kremlin to harangue unsuspecting
Midwestern voters. "Hacking," however, remains the centerpiece of the narrative - the idea that Russian state actors "hacked" the
Democratic National Committee and exfiltrated emails is routinely cited as the centerpiece of the overall "interference" thesis.
After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian
government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now.
TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also
under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's
"period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server
breach - which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor
Megyn Kelly - were
issued in June
2016, when the contract was still active.
Last week at a forum with Vladimir Putin, Kelly listed
all the authoritative American entities which she claimed have corroborated the conclusion that Russian state actors "interfered"
in the 2016 presidential election. (Notwithstanding its vagueness and imprecision, the term "interference" has come to be the standard
term American media personalities invoke when seeking to describe how "Russians" maliciously undermined the sanctity of the 2016
US election process.) Querying Putin, Kelly repeated the
canard that "17 intelligence agencies" had
all independently concluded that Russia indeed "interfered" - whatever that means, exactly. She then continued: "Even private, non-partisan
security firms say the same that Russia interfered with the US election."
The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to
describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine
wrote in The Baffler,
Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already
knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for
any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as
all but incontrovertible.
In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama
appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing
Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions.
Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only
entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January,
Comey testified that the FBI had been
denied access
to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials
told reporters , "The FBI
repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well
after the initial compromise had been mitigated."
Comey's long-awaited Congressional testimony on Thursday may provide additional insight into the FBI's reliance on the firm.
Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held
exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching
certainty - despite the fact that it was
forced
to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of
its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation
of placing the blame on Russia was false."
Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts"
who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR,
announced last month that it had been valued
at one billion dollars.
"... After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now. ..."
"... TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. ..."
"... The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine wrote in The Baffler ..."
"... Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as all but incontrovertible. ..."
"... In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions. ..."
"... Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January, Comey testified that the FBI had been denied access to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials told reporters , "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated." ..."
"... Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching certainty - despite the fact that it was forced to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation of placing the blame on Russia was false." ..."
"... Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts" who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR, announced last month that it had been valued at one billion dollars. ..."
Claims of "Russian interference" have been ubiquitous in U.S. political discourse for almost a full year now; these often amount
to a mélange of allegations ranging from "hacking" to "influence campaigns" to "online trolls" sent by the Kremlin to harangue unsuspecting
Midwestern voters. "Hacking," however, remains the centerpiece of the narrative - the idea that Russian state actors "hacked" the
Democratic National Committee and exfiltrated emails is routinely cited as the centerpiece of the overall "interference" thesis.
After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian
government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now.
TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also
under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's
"period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server
breach - which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor
Megyn Kelly - were
issued in June
2016, when the contract was still active.
Last week at a forum with Vladimir Putin, Kelly listed
all the authoritative American entities which she claimed have corroborated the conclusion that Russian state actors "interfered"
in the 2016 presidential election. (Notwithstanding its vagueness and imprecision, the term "interference" has come to be the standard
term American media personalities invoke when seeking to describe how "Russians" maliciously undermined the sanctity of the 2016
US election process.) Querying Putin, Kelly repeated the
canard that "17 intelligence agencies" had
all independently concluded that Russia indeed "interfered" - whatever that means, exactly. She then continued: "Even private, non-partisan
security firms say the same that Russia interfered with the US election."
The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to
describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine
wrote in The Baffler,
Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already
knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for
any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as
all but incontrovertible.
In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama
appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing
Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions.
Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only
entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January,
Comey testified that the FBI had been
denied access
to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials
told reporters , "The FBI
repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well
after the initial compromise had been mitigated."
Comey's long-awaited Congressional testimony on Thursday may provide additional insight into the FBI's reliance on the firm.
Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held
exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching
certainty - despite the fact that it was
forced
to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of
its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation
of placing the blame on Russia was false."
Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts"
who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR,
announced last month that it had been valued
at one billion dollars.
"... TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001. ..."
"... I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures. ..."
"... A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email. ..."
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence
failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring
and Summer of 2001.
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting
the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements
and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was
behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence
to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President
Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded
to my email.
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes. FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing". If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility
and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to
our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of
the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our
European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually
an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery
policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and
what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion
dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the
health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay
by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the
modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump
election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from
Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced
foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria
wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria
(there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. Add to this
sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control
of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and
the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of
elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse than those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in
Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces.
Is not this a definition of split personality?
James Comey's release of his memos to The New York Times was a carefully orchestrated act that
appeared designed to shield him from any legal repercussions, whistleblower and ethics lawyers say.
While President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, is reportedly preparing a leak complaint
against Comey, experts say the fight over Comey's disclosures is more political than legal.
"It's clear that Comey understood the legal principles [protecting disclosures]," said Stephen
Kohn, a lawyer who specializes in whistleblower cases.
But, he said, "Trump's lawyer was also smart because he's filing these complaints in places that
don't mean anything. It's public relations."
The memos, which Comey wrote to contemporaneously document his encounters with the president,
have become a flashpoint in the administration's response to the former FBI director's scathing testimony
before a Senate panel Thursday.
In one of the most dramatic moments in Comey's remarks, he revealed that he had provided one of
his memos to The New York Times through a trusted friend to prompt the appointment of a special counsel
in the bureau's Russia investigation.
Trump on Friday morning branded Comey a "leaker" in a tweet and reports emerged that Kasowitz
is planning to file a complaint with the Justice Department Inspector General as well as the Senate.
But the way Comey went about his disclosure makes it very unlikely that he is subject to any legal
or administrative penalty, legal experts say.
"So long as he ensured the FBI had its own copy of the memos, and so long as the memos were not
classified, Mr. Comey's actions appear to be entirely lawful," said Brad Moss, a lawyer who specializes
in national security and security clearance law.
We also know for certain that there were numerous violations of the voting rights act due to Crosscheck
and other caging operations. We also know that a number of state election officials computers
were hacked by Russia - and I have seen the guts of those Diabold machines and even with my limited
programing skills I could hack one and cover my tracks.
New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong'
Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report
from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials
in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the
Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that
it was.
The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number
of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence
officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well. ..."
"... As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise. ..."
"... This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed". ..."
Published on Friday, by
Consortium News Mike Morell's Kill-Russians Advice Washington's foreign policy hot shots
are flexing their rhetorical, warmongering muscles to impress Hillary Clinton, including ex-CIA acting
director Morell who calls for killing Russians and Iranians by
Ray McGovern
33 Comments A closer look at the record of Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, is
warranted. (Photo: AP) Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative
rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally
likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so
it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson,
and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose - having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell - performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview
, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled
to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points , included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous
Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time , Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [non-existent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong - that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time , he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed
the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until
moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
'Wisdom' on China
For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie
show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis. Addressing
the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main "negative:"
"We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific. What does that mean?
It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip
yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have
to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do. And both sides see all of
three of those things. That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. "
Those who got to the end of Morell's book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page
325:
"The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that each country needs
to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other).
Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern
weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. "
Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those
whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms
traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton,
as well.
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarre-ness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an
agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
I will watch for this creep to show up in Clinton's administration as these two seem to be peas
in a pod.
Hillary has a hard time relating to normal people on the campaign trail because her center of
focus is in foreign policy. It stands to reason that she will want people with the kill instinct
around her. Being a neocon at heart, her need for accurate intelligence is small and her desire
has always been to go after Iran for Bibi and Russia, well, just because they are the go to enemy.
Russia is standing in the way of taking out Assad and clearing a path through Syria to Iran.
Rest assured that is a public official in Russia publicly stated to a national TV audience that
Russia needed to start killing Americans so as to send a message, the western media would be in
an uproar proclaiming it as a unacceptable provocation.
Entire hours of broadcasts on multiple "News shows" would invite in pundits to make the most
dire of pronouncements all concluding this showing Russia as a nation seeking war and conflict.
A simple fact. It is the Government of the USA that is the bully here and that same Government
is the greatest threat to world peace on this globe. It is the USA that heads the "Empire of Evil".
If it weren't for the CIA--an organization that passes out licenses to kill the way the old church
of Rome handed out "Indulgences" to its wealthiest donors--someone like Mike Morrell would be
forced to find his calling as a street smart serial killer.
"It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from
a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It's important to keep in mind that the CIA constantly manufactures false cases, false flags,
bogus assassinations, and that makes lying child's play. One does it enough and their conscience
(presuming they had one to begin with) goes cold and callous.
Morrell would be just as comfortable serving Hitler as he would an American dictator or head
of state.
If there weren't entrenched, empowered interests BENT upon war, maniacal minds like that of
Morrell would not be tolerated... nor used.
Someone had to pretend that the false pretexts were true. Imagine if the money spent on searching
for weapons they KNEW didn't exist instead went to improving life for citizens of the targeted
nations? But then, there'd be no terrorism; and without terrorism, how could the now gargantuan
military infrastructure aimed at controlling citizens (as the global elites tighten the fiscal
screws) come into place?
These professional cons and killers (like felons placed into jail cells where they learn from
others how to improve "their craft") gained much from the writings of Goebbels. There must be
an outside enemy threat made existentially real... and then, all Constitutional liberties can
be rescinded under the guise of protecting citizens.
Notice all the recent terrorist events. Some are no doubt real; but others are false flags
and the net impact of all of this is that the entire world is now perceived (by the spooks and
the Pentagon) as a battleground.
And when there are vast, well-organized armies, it creates on the part of those brave enough
to resist, ingenious forms of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, more and more unexpected places will
indeed blow up. Meanwhile, how much $ is dumped into surveillance which NEVER stops these events?
I guess the uniformed spooks are too busy in forums like this one, watching the Left (intellectuals,
poets, labor leaders, and those who refuse to see things the way elites intend for citizens to
see things) and/or watching porn... to notice.
Welcome to theater of the absurd. It's everywhere these days!
This bloke is a terrorist by anybody's dictionary definition. Simple.
The last person who thought that killing Russians was a good idea ended up committing suicide
just before the Russians got to his bunker in Berlin. This Morrell character would have us all
commit nuclear suicide so as to fulfill his insane fantasy.
One stupid (C)ommittee to (I)ntervene (A)nywhere dick dead, wow. How about 'kill'
the Pentagon which seems to be the root of the problem? Not a person but the whole phkn deal.
All those folks could 'maybe' just go 'get a life' instead of being terminal perverts.
Have you seen this material? It's very compelling:
Yes. This particular interview includes much of what PCR has been discussing for the past many
months. I'm surprised, though, that he left out specifically discussing the U.S. government's
war against alternate currencies to the dollar that resulted in the destruction of Libya (and
the death of Gaddafi) and now all of the covert and overt actions against the BRICS governments.
Articles addressing these continuing issues are normally first published on the following sites:
He may end up paired up with Ted Cruz as Secretaries of State and Defense. Improbable? Not
to me. Is anything improbable any more?
It used to be that people in positions in the State and Defense Departments may have been murdering
perceived enemies of the State, but they didn't go speaking out about it publicly. They tried
to maintain the image that the USA only killed in self defense like the white hat heroes of the
old cowboy movies, Roy Rogers and all like that, where the black hat bad guys always had to reach
for their " shooting irons' first so they could be plugged fair and square.
That ethic is long gone and was probably never real but the idea was maintained. But now we
have President BO not exactly bragging about his "drone kill list" but not in any way distancing
himself from public knowledge of it either. Kissengerian "realpolitik" and Big Henry is HRC's
hero and role model so she is positioned to become the Murder Mama of the west, ready to show
them Chinese and Ruskies who's ready to be fastest straight shootin'ist gun slinger in the global
town Main Street with Cruz and Morrell at her flanks like the Earp Brothers at the OK Corral with
Doc Holliday Kissinger limping along right there with 'em
The fact that murderous authoritarian conservatives get ahead in government and business far better
than peace loving, egalitarian liberals, says a lot about the American psychic.
The issue is not so much to be rid of them, but rather not to sustain a legal, financial,
cultural, political, and tactical infrastructure that REWARDS them and counts on them to effortlessly
enact the dirty work of Empire.
Essentially, the Shock Doctrine handbook might as well define "sociopath" as a required bona
fide in the career search for the right candidates.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why. There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths
in empowered positions onto The People.
The Page and Gilens Study made it clear that The People's Will is NOT what those in government
positions institute.
Find any long-sustained society on this planet (since the onset of patriarchy) that doesn't
evidence a political/social/economic hierarchy?
The most egalitarian nations, Europe's social Democracies have hardly achieved full Democratic
representation or full equality but they go much further than "political business as usual" within
the U.S.
The bottom line is that in most nations there have been long-established family dynasties.
And when 50 people hold half the nation's wealth or even half the world's wealth, there is no
possible way that ordinary citizens can direct policies.
This much concentrated wealth taints all systems of would-be Democratic representation.
And the problem didn't arise overnight. It's been long-standing.
Our own nation has only enjoyed short periods where power, privilege, and economic opportunity
were somewhat widely shared. To the Black community that marker is yet to be realized and ditto
for many Hispanics and women.
Nonetheless, the elites like shadowy creatures built up their think tank influence in the shadows
and patiently dismembered the New Deal piece by piece over the course of the past 3-4 decades.
When processes are done by stealth and through gradual accommodation, and when the mass media's
"experts" all lie about what's going on, and when false flags are used to decimate civil liberties
and to justify massive crackdowns on citizens... I think those persons enacting these strategies
should be held as the accountable parties... rather than those being done unto.
I mean how different is this castigation than that which justifies the violence on the part
of the white police officer when he and his gang of Neanderthals let loose with premeditated deadly
force against a Black kid or man who is unarmed?
How different is if from the mindset that knocks down the doors of families living in their
own nations! In Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... and then if someone gets shot, it's the fault of those
under attack?
This is the mindset of the rapist/dominator. It has NO place in a would-be Progressive forum
yet I come up against it daily. That is why I am SURE that many who post here (with regularity
under a constantly changing BATTERY of screen names) are in the military or otherwise in some
branch of its now farmed out "Intelligence-gathering" Hydra.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why.
There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered
positions onto The People.
The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism,
fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals,
entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise.
How could anyone destroy the CIA? It's like roaches hiding behind the woodwork.
Besides, any position that advocates a violent solution adds to the problem of violence in
this world.
I am waiting for Lofgren's book on the Deep State. I ordered a paperback copy back in January
not realizing that it would not be published till this coming September.
I am well-aware of the Deep State and its relationship to NSA and CIA and lots more.
This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that
dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily
intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed".
But hey, I'm one of those tin foil hat wearing Truthers. Excuse me for questioning these jerks
all of these years later.
It's the human "psyche". Greed unifies, but ideals fragment as each idealist tries
to demonstrate how perfect they are in contrast to the other idealists.
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
"... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
"... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
"... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
"... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
"... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
"... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
"... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
"... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
"... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller
and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar
Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President
Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth
is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director
and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses
of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
plain vanilla incompetence.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence
failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring
and Summer of 2001.
Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the
9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the
system had
been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI
agent witness termed "
criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner.
(Some failures were never fixed at all.)
Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten
"war on terror," which only served to
exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .
Unfulfilled Promise
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the
night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements
and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was
behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence
to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President
Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded
to my email.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath
of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the "
post 9/11 round-up "
of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at
the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially
P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply
grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the
detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
A History of Failure
Long before he became FBI Director, serious
questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling
decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other
"top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered
through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100
million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.
For his part, Deputy Attorney General
James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on
a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and
torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention
of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.
Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller
were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel
memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial"
or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state
of emergency."
The Comey/Mueller Myth
What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men
from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment.
A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to
continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.
The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller
did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale
for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs
after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document
such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance
and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA
and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
ORDER IT NOW
Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be "
joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media.
Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants
and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet,
reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along
with official incompetence.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the
closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was
chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him
to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out
against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the
truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo
to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of
TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to
launching the Iraq War is
archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled "
Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing.
This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.
As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller
are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).
According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have
violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum
documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture
advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous
to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the
fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter"
of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more
obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some
of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley
in a hearing dated May 3.
Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and
no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal
digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done
in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case
and liquidate the office himself.
My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi
Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband
was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory
There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited
about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:
Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the
appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob
Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom
of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to
the president.
"Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could
be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and
ability to do the right thing."
"In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert
Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently
chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent
almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San
Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined
the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."
So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.
Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite
this:
"Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which
a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect
the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the
Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility
and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."
In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for
his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr.
Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or
a lack of information that I subsequently got."
He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered
assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be
training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of
"no warning signs" of any sort of attack.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said
his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley,
that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the
investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."
To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal"
Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director
to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting
to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats.
Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!
Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.
The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false
flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats
are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans'
behind-the-scenes role in all this.
Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going
along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent
overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.
March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley
Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack
can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should
be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria
and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter
any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering
subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The
article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.
March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate
Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used
a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's
not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!
Nice Try Clinton News Network!
@Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey:
Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges
But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received
$467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the
November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in
relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.
@Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001:
The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes
disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.
@MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the
fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention
to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones
when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway,
a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards
to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings
would bear out Comey.
@Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly
pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest
it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to
Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it
be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the
investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer
(he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes
his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Believers in the ridiculous official narrative of the 19 miracle working Jihadist amateur
pilots and hydrocarbon based office fires.
Those who maintain that the Bush Administration was "incompetent" and that it "ignored
the warnings."
The LIHOP crowd- Bush and Cheney deviously let it happen on purpose.
Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a
"fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained
"slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man
living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious
and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string
pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.
As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth."
Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds
of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn
into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity
to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives
or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by
any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but
the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging
fires" is too stupid for words.
It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that
a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today
in 2017.
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military
intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":
If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have
found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk.
This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission.
Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental
interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds
of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago
.
Populism and the Politics of Health
MARCH 14, 2017 1:43 PM
by Paul Krugman
...
This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which
left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has
failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist"
voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics
desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe
it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have
no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their
eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state
is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental
contradiction is now out in the open."
Reply
Friday, Christopher H. - ,
June 09, 2017 at 11:12 AM
There has been a silence from the center left during the Corbyn campaign and now after it is over.
Luckily they have Comey to talk about. I will be curious to hear from Chris Dillow.
"In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open"
"... Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind. ..."
"... He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today. ..."
"... Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate. ..."
"... This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government by the deep state, media and uniparty ..."
"... So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection. ..."
"... Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email investigation. Why would he do that? ..."
"... Comey took notes because he planned to blackmail Trump in the future just like J Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI. ..."
"... "Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments. I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist psychopaths. It's that simple. ..."
"... Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. ..."
"... Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts ..."
"... Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA. ..."
"... Not one coward on that Senate committee had the balls to ask about the Seth Rich investigation........disappointing ..."
"... Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election. Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing. ..."
"... The threat of being "Clintoned" is a powerful force. ..."
There will come a day when the city square will be packed with gibbets filled with swinging heads
of traitorous bastard commies -- most readily found in leftshit cities. The degeneracy must end.
Today's testimony by Comey was a farce, a transparent attempt by a spent and bitter bureaucrat trying
to hurt a sitting President.
Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President
asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred
to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot,
helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their
fucking mind.
Tucker chimes in and reviews the day's events, pointing out the hypocrisy of Comey and his dealings
with AG Lynch, who asked for Comey to word the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal as
a 'matter.' If that's not collusion and political pressure on the FBI, nothing is.
He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which
was confirmed by Comey today.
After watching this political circus it is very clear that no one should be re-elected from
either party, with the single exception of Paul.
Looks like what we really need is a new political party that actually serves the public tax
payers, unfortunately it may take a major financial depression and its accompanying turmoil to
bring that about.
IMHO, the Comey hearing was John McCain's chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. I think
his idea to go after Comey's interactions with the Obama regime was a great idea, but he came
unprepared and unrehearsed. McCain had an opportunity to display leadership, but he failed to
lead.
Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC
which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate.
It's time 81 year old McCain - last in his Naval Academy class - shuffled off to an assisted
living center in Arizona.
Comey created a memo because it's hard to leak to multiple sources at one time in person.
We're living history folks. This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government
by the deep state, media and uniparty dominated by leftojihadis. The Gang of 8 is composed
of 4 dimocrites and 4 rinos. The rinos had a duty to come forward and not only refute the lies
in the media but to reveal it all as a hoax. Only Nunes told President Trump what was going on
and he was forced to recuse himself from the intelligence committee investigation.
Even an atheist has to admit there's divine intervention at work here. Flawed though he admits
to be, Trump is being guided and protected by a force more powerful than the swamp.
So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the
whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection.
But Mueller won't. He & Comey are besties of 25 year standing. All Mueller will do it find
no direct links between the Russians and Trump or his administration but justify Comey's investigation
by saying the Russians are bad, evil people who were trying to co-opt naive and inexperienced
Trump colleagues.
If they wanted an honest and truthful investigation they would not have selected a retired
swamp general.
It scares me that people actually believe this shit. I guess we are doomed considering how
many morons like PitBullsRule are lapping up the koolaid with their heads in the sand
Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email
investigation. Why would he do that?
Comey's (limited hangout) strategy: Say a few things to look honest, so he could sell "the
Russians did it (hack)" - despite showing no evidence. Otherwise, there would be no need for a
Special Counsel and he knows Mueller will forment more troubles for Trump, perhaps for years.
Trump needs to end this Russian hack nonsense ASAP.
I'd like Loretta Lynch to show me where in the FBI handbook it explains the proper procedure
for conducting "matters".
They just make shit up to suit their needs. The Comey incident is another sad example of how
every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the point
they can no longer perform their intended function.
"Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments.
I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against
the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist
psychopaths. It's that simple.
"how every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the
point they can no longer perform their intended function" and should therefore be disbanded. Fixed
it for you.
Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple
to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. Trump's
possible recording constrained Comey's M.O..
Nobody will do anything about any of this. Time to shitcan the lot of them. I hope not a single
doofus up for re-election goes back to D.C. in '18.
It's hard to know which to slap first, those that break the law out in the open--or those that
turn a blind eye to the flagrant lawlessness of the trangressors.
Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts I think.
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media in order to have an effect on the country
(ie a counsel)
He admitted he was concerned enough with his meeting with Trump to make a memo of it - instead
of going to the DOJ as required by law
He admitted he was concerned with Lynch telling him to not use the word investigation (which
was the truth) and agreeing to it, instead of resigning or reporting it.
He demonstrates that he leaked information to the media, but not the truth that Trump was not
under investigation - thus showing politcal bias in his job.
There are a few crimes there that I gather the DOJ has no option but to prosecute, how can
it not? Since they are also prosecuting Winner for the exact same thing?
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey said that he behaved 'slightly cowardly'. Well,
that is the sort of behavior one expects from a Weasel.
[No insults intended to the small mammals grouped together in the weasel family.]
Great review Tucker Carlson! Comey is a disgruntled loser like Killary. Comey never followed
up on Seth Rich murder, a more serious matter than playing stupid politics.
Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing
his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to
release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United
States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI
partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA.
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey was actively covering up for the murderers
who murdered Seth Rich and the people who hired them. He should be shitting whole goats knowing
that Attorney General Sessions seized everything in his office while he was in LACALIFUSA. Comey
will probably be joining Obama shortly wherever it is that he is hanging out overseas.
Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election.
Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed
to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing.
"... Ousted FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that he suspected former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was in cahoots with the Hillary Clinton campaign last summer. ..."
A key takeaway of today's Comey hearing is the bombshell revelation that former DOJ head Loretta Lynch tried to encourage James Comey
to minimize the investigation into Hillary Clinton.
Ousted FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that he suspected former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was in cahoots with the
Hillary Clinton campaign last summer.
Lynch, he said, told him not to refer to the probe into Clinton's private email server as an "investigation."
"She said just call it a matter. That concerned me because that language tracked how the campaign was talking about the FBI's
work," he said.
"That was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation,
which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
Comey announced last July that criminal charges were not warranted, angering Republicans.
Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days.
Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those
IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
Lesbian bodybuilder, "Black lives Matter" enthusiast, who claims "being white is terrorism" managed
to get top security clearance. Something is fishy here.
Notable quotes:
"... With the announcement that 25-year old "Reality Winner" (no, really) had been arrested for stealing and leaking top secret documents, it became clear to us that a near and dear friend who was very ill for a very long time had finally been pushed over the brink: we regret to say that Satire is dead . ..."
"... Start with her name: "Reality Winner." Then let's tick off the other boxes: lesbian bodybuilder, ardent Bernie Sanders supporter, a "Black Lives Matter" enthusiast who (though white herself) argues that "Being white is terrorism." A woman whose social media posts include referring to the President of the United States as a "piece of shit" and the "Tangerine in chief," who additionally declares that in a war between the US and Iran, she'll side with Iran. ..."
"... And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials. Which raises two very troubling questions: just what in blazing Hell does someone have to do to not get a security clearance, and how many other angry, ignorant, communist-leaning, anti-American social justice warriors are currently embedded in (and sabotaging) our intelligence agencies?! ..."
"... "And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials." Can you say "P A T S Y"? As in fall guy...er...gal? ..."
With the announcement that 25-year old "Reality Winner" (no, really) had been arrested for stealing
and leaking top secret documents, it became clear to us that a near and dear friend who was very
ill for a very long time had finally been pushed over the brink: we regret to say that Satire is
dead .
Because seriously, when a story gets this "in your face" ridiculous - what details are left for
us to push to humorous extremes?!
Start with her name: "Reality Winner." Then let's tick off the other boxes: lesbian bodybuilder,
ardent Bernie Sanders supporter, a "Black Lives Matter" enthusiast who (though white herself) argues
that "Being white is terrorism." A woman whose social media posts include referring to the President
of the United States as a "piece of shit" and the "Tangerine in chief," who additionally declares
that in a war between the US and Iran, she'll side with Iran.
And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials.
Which raises two very troubling questions: just what in blazing Hell does someone have to do to not
get a security clearance, and how many other angry, ignorant, communist-leaning, anti-American social
justice warriors are currently embedded in (and sabotaging) our intelligence agencies?!
We're guessing the number to be terrifyingly high, but can't know for sure because trying to find
out would require functional intelligence agencies. And that ship, like Satire, has sailed.
E-Knight •Jun 9, 2017 10:54 AM
Yet another victim to the hyper neo-liberal propaganda...sad.
Pure Evil -> Erek •Jun 9, 2017 11:05 AM
If she hates white people. Why didn't she at least get a tan to cover up all that white skin?
Dye her hair black and put it in a fro? Learn Ebonics and talk street?
Lesbian bodybuilder, that's so white bread.
Cognitive Dissonance -> Pure Evil •Jun 9, 2017 11:34 AM
"And still...STILL...she was given a top secret security clearance and access to classified materials."
Can you say "P A T S Y"? As in fall guy...er...gal?
Urban Roman -> Cognitive Dissonance •Jun 9, 2017 11:57 AM
Manchurian lesbian bodybuilder. MK-Ultrabot.
Manipulism •Jun 9, 2017 10:57 AM
As George Webb said, they had a contest for this job and she was the Winner.
Herd Redirection... -> Manipulism •Jun 9, 2017 11:15 AM
She just comes across as some sort of golem. A figment of someone's iMAGInation.
CosmoJoe -> Kreditanstalt •Jun 9, 2017 11:56 AM
It could be argued that Edward Snowden did the country a service. What did this dummy really do?
And it is one thing to do something for love of country that gets you into trouble, but this idiot
clearly has no love *at all* for this country or the people that live here. Side with Iran? Seriously?
This dumb bitch (and I use the term loosely) has a serious libtard brain disease.
Piranha •Jun 9, 2017 11:02 AM
FBI CIA NSA a complete joke......you really cant blame Reality there even Comey is a leaker himself
lol
Smedley's Butler •Jun 9, 2017 11:02 AM
It was disclosed in court yesterday that she also had a thumbdrive full lof data, not just the
5 page document. This thumbdrive will reveal secrets about the NGA program as well as (false) evidence
of Russian hacking that will be tied back to witness testimony by compromised hackers being held
by the FBI. Impeachment to follow.
This story is much bigger, and just a part of yesterday's play.
Son of Captain Nemo •Jun 9, 2017 11:19 AM
After 9/11, followed by Bill Binney, Tom Drake and Russell Tice the new ship sailed... and it
WILL NEVER be anything but a source for "do whatever they want you to do in completing the mission(s)"
as the only brain trust(s) that mattered vacated after that "LAST MOST IMPORTANT NAIL" hit the coffin!
Rinse and repeat for DOD with the likes of Hugh Shelton, Tommy (aw shucks) Franks, Martin Dempsey
and of course MAD "mad dog" they had to "scrape the scrape" off the bottom of the barrel to find...
In hindsight we should have had the "watershed" long before September 11, 2001 as the "professionals"
in the intelligence community were seeing how bad it was getting before the Gulf War.
Followed by
the road to nowhere in the Balkans when in fact they knew that NATO should have been irrelevant by
1999 with it's losses! If there is any redeeming feature to the statements Miss Reality probably
never made I would concur with her position on Iran!
Too bad she doesn't feel the same way about Russia but then again I'm about 99.99999% sure all
of her statements came from somewhere else.
Lea •Jun 9, 2017 11:05 AM
So why is it illegal when Winner leaks, and legal when a high US official like Comey does the
same?
quesnay -> Lea •Jun 9, 2017 11:34 AM
Because the US is now a third-rate banana republic. Consistency of law is for civilized societies,
the company of which we left some time ago.
"... This behavior clearly indicates that James Comey was a political animal first and foremost, who politicized and weaponized the FBI to his own personal and institutional benefit. ..."
Good grief is this man absorbed with his own need for attention.
Fired FBI
Director James Comey admitted today that he was a direct source for leaking
information to the media through a friend of his, a professor at Columbia
University.
This behavior clearly indicates that James Comey was a political animal
first and foremost, who politicized and weaponized the FBI to his own personal
and institutional benefit.
"... Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is threatening to subpoena a firm tied to the controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump. ..."
"... Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who now heads Fusion GPS, warning that that if he refused to "comply voluntarily" with the committee's request senators "will begin consideration of compulsory process under its rules." ..."
"... The New York Times reported earlier this year that Fusion GPS was hired to conduct opposition research in September 2015 by a GOP donor opposed to Trump. In June 2016, the firm hired Steele to investigate any ties between Trump and Russia and, according to the Times, then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 's campaign paid the firm for the research after it became clear that Trump would be his party's nominee. ..."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
is threatening to subpoena a firm tied to the controversial opposition research dossier on President
Trump.
Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street
Journal reporter who now heads Fusion GPS, warning that that if he refused to "comply voluntarily"
with the committee's request senators "will begin consideration of compulsory process under its rules."
"Your attorney has failed to sufficiently explain your claims that responding to the Committee's
requests would infringe upon or violate your and/or Fusion's First Amendment rights, attorney-client
and attorney work product privileges, and confidentiality agreements," Grassley wrote in a letter
released on Friday.
Grassley is giving Simpson until Wednesday to respond to his letter and hand over "responsive
documents."
The back-and-forth comes as Grassley is digging deeper into former British spy Christopher Steele's
controversial dossier, which alleges that the Russians had compromising information on the president.
Grassley
sent a letter to Fusion GPS in March requesting information on the dossier, as well as details
on Steele's hiring, and asked if it had shared information with the FBI.
But lawyers for the firm
said on April 9 that the letter "calls for information and documents protected by the First Amendment
rights, attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and contractual rights (e.g., confidentiality
agreements) of Fusion GPS and/or its clients."
Grassley argued that the firm hasn't been able to give a "clear explanation of the basis
for the claimed privileges and rights." "Based on the minimal and vague explanations your attorney
has provided, the Committee cannot adequately assess your claims. Thus, we must presume that they
are unfounded," Grassley wrote.
The New York Times
reported earlier this year that Fusion GPS was hired to conduct opposition research in September
2015 by a GOP donor opposed to Trump. In June 2016, the firm hired Steele to investigate any ties
between Trump and Russia and, according to the Times, then-Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton 's campaign
paid the firm for the research after it became clear that Trump would be his party's nominee.
"... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
"... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified
information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are
based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have
often received bad information.
"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are
dead wrong," Comey said.
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials
in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times
wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.
The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number
of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence
officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because
of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian
president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.
"In the main it was not true," Comey said.
But in an
analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the
Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not
able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.
The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization
of Russian intelligence officials.
Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's
description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."
Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the
media's coverage of its investigations.
"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information,
is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually
know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey,
you got that thing wrong.' "
Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.
CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never
told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.
That's too simplistic: DNC leak did caused damage for Clinton campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access to the DNC servers. ..."
"... CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it. ..."
"... CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme. His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1] ..."
Would you trust this guy with technically verifying who perpetrated the alleged Russian hack? Believe it or not, the above photo of CTO Dmitri Alperovitch was taken directly from CrowdStrike's official website, the "American
cybersecurity technology company" tasked with the digital sleuthing of the DNC server hack.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Did Guccifer 2.0 Fake "Russian Fingerprints?"
Here's another fake report produced by CrowdStrike regarding a hacked "Ukrainian artillery app" during the Ukrainian War. It's
important to note that the following mainstream media account was published by Voice of America (VOA) -- "a United States government-funded
multimedia news outlet".
What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access
to the DNC servers.
CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email
hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As a matter of documented fact, it was actually CrowdStrike who hacked the DNC server before the 2016 election. The following
exposé is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to know the real back story.
DNC
Russian Hackers Found!
The plot to frame Russia -- for the DNC's own criminal conspiracy -- was closely coordinated between the DNC and the CIA and
carried out with the full support of the Obama Administration. Given that the heads of virtually all 17 agencies within the U.S.
Intelligence Community were ready and willing to support the necessary crime wave, it was an obvious brainchild of Deep State
.
CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme.
His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to
maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly
demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1]
The preceding graphic delineates the time frame according to which CrowdStrike was stealthily employed by the DNC to eventually
identify the fictitious 'Russian' hackers. They even named the alleged state actor COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR. That's because all they
do -- 24/7 -- is hunt Russian bear even where they don't exist.
BOTTOM LINE
There are very good reasons why this story will not go away, and only gets bigger with each passing day.
When
the CIA, DNC, CrowStrike et al. started off with such a flagra... Because this complex and convoluted criminal conspiracy is
being used as a basis to instigate a war against Russia, it's really just another classic false flag operation. Such CIA-conceived
black ops, that are then used as NSA-driven global PsyOps, can only come this far when Deep State so orders it. Their ultimate
goal is to overthrow the Trump presidency before their New World Order agenda is thwarted any further.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps these highly radioactive details explain the now-notorious grin worn by Dmitri Alperovitch in his company photo posted
above.
That's too simplistic: DNC leak did caused damage for Clinton campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access to the DNC servers. ..."
"... CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it. ..."
"... CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme. His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1] ..."
Would you trust this guy with technically verifying who perpetrated the alleged Russian hack? Believe it or not, the above photo of CTO Dmitri Alperovitch was taken directly from CrowdStrike's official website, the "American
cybersecurity technology company" tasked with the digital sleuthing of the DNC server hack.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Did Guccifer 2.0 Fake "Russian Fingerprints?"
Here's another fake report produced by CrowdStrike regarding a hacked "Ukrainian artillery app" during the Ukrainian War. It's
important to note that the following mainstream media account was published by Voice of America (VOA) -- "a United States government-funded
multimedia news outlet".
What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access
to the DNC servers.
CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email
hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As a matter of documented fact, it was actually CrowdStrike who hacked the DNC server before the 2016 election. The following
exposé is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to know the real back story.
DNC
Russian Hackers Found!
The plot to frame Russia -- for the DNC's own criminal conspiracy -- was closely coordinated between the DNC and the CIA and
carried out with the full support of the Obama Administration. Given that the heads of virtually all 17 agencies within the U.S.
Intelligence Community were ready and willing to support the necessary crime wave, it was an obvious brainchild of Deep State
.
CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme.
His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to
maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly
demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1]
The preceding graphic delineates the time frame according to which CrowdStrike was stealthily employed by the DNC to eventually
identify the fictitious 'Russian' hackers. They even named the alleged state actor COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR. That's because all they
do -- 24/7 -- is hunt Russian bear even where they don't exist.
BOTTOM LINE
There are very good reasons why this story will not go away, and only gets bigger with each passing day.
When
the CIA, DNC, CrowStrike et al. started off with such a flagra... Because this complex and convoluted criminal conspiracy is
being used as a basis to instigate a war against Russia, it's really just another classic false flag operation. Such CIA-conceived
black ops, that are then used as NSA-driven global PsyOps, can only come this far when Deep State so orders it. Their ultimate
goal is to overthrow the Trump presidency before their New World Order agenda is thwarted any further.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps these highly radioactive details explain the now-notorious grin worn by Dmitri Alperovitch in his company photo posted
above.
"... Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no? ..."
"... The snail's pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump's frustration. What explains the FBI's torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age. ..."
"... We hear daily on cable TV of the "Trump-Russia" scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell: ..."
"... "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark." ..."
"... Where are the criminals? Where is the crime? ..."
"... Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this ? ..."
"... All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city's hatred for President Trump, and its fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency. ..."
"... For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime. ..."
Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out, "We had no relationship at all.
I never met him. Have you
all lost your senses
over there?"
Yes, Vlad, we have.
Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.
If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the KGB?
Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly
intercept everything Russians say to Americans,
why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no?
The snail's pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump's frustration. What explains the FBI's torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover
had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age.
We hear daily on cable TV of the "Trump-Russia" scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence
official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting
CIA
Director Mike Morrell:
"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.
There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears
that Trump wanted a "back channel" to Putin so he could honor his commitment t
o seek better relations with Russia.
Given the Russophobia
rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what
is criminal about this ?
Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels.
Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the
Kaiser and the
Brits . FDR ran messages to Churchill through
Harry Hopkins.
As for Trump asking Director
James Comey to cut some
slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about
having to fire the man.
So, what is really going on here?
All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city's hatred for President Trump, and its
fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency.
For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of
the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution
to overthrow a ruling regime.
Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump's victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their defeat with his
tweets.
Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized upon that old standby. We didn't lose! The election was stolen in
a vast conspiracy, an "act of war" against America, an assault upon "our democracy," criminal collusion between the Kremlin and the
Trumpites.
Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the usurper.
The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to have South Vietnam's
president abort Lyndon Johnson's new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final hours of that election.
Then, as now, the "t" word, treason, was trotted out.
Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and Reagan, after 49-state
landslides, were faced with attempts to
overturn the election results.
With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With
Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in
destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold War in a bloodless victory for the West.
After Lincoln's assassination,
President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a
ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated
and devastated South.
The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the Cabinet without
Senate permission. Johnson defied the Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.
"Tennessee" Johnson was impeached, and missed conviction by one vote. John F. Kennedy, in his
1956 book, called the
senator who had voted to save Johnson a "Profile in Courage."
If Trump is brought down on the basis of what Putin correctly labels "nonsense," this city will have executed a nonviolent coup
against a constitutionally elected president. Such an act would drop us into the company of those Third World nations where such
means are the customary ways that corrupt elites retain their hold on power.
"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."
"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."
"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.
This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined
Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on
social media:
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.
President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a
blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the
investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him
in private, which Comey recorded in his
much-discussed memo .
The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:
Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Risch : He said, "I hope."
Comey : Those are exact words, correct.
Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?
Comey : I don't, as I sit here.
Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a
few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia.
Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the
New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking
on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really
now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated
that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned
and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision
was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the
credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a
disgruntled former
employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the
FBI."
Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation
of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important
to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but
to protect the FBI."
... ... ...
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]
Fired FBI Director
James B. Comey orchestrated the leak of details
from memos of his conversations with President Trump, he admitted to Congress on Thursday, saying he had hoped it would spur the
Justice Department to announce an independent prosecutor to probe the Trump operation.
Mr. Comey said he used a law professor friend
at Columbia University as a go-between to share information with The New York Times. He didn't name the professor, but said he wanted
to get information out after Mr. Trump took to Twitter to dispute that he had asked the
FBI to let former National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn off the hook.
"I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine
to do it," Mr. Comey testified.
The revelation was among the most striking of the day for
Mr. Comey , who spent 2 and 1/2 hours answering questions
publicly to the Senate intelligence committee.
The former director said he felt compelled to take notes of his interactions with Mr. Trump because he was afraid the president
would "lie" about them.
"In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed
him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of
the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties."
Oh OK so Trump MADE the little bitch state that he (Trump) was not the target .Really!!
"Former FBI Director James Comey says if FBI agents knew the president had asked him to drop an
investigation into the former national security adviser, it would have a "real chilling effect" on
their work.
Comey says he decided not to tell agents working on the Russia investigation about what he perceived
to be a request from the president to drop the probe into Michael Flynn.
Comey says even as good as the agents are, hearing that the president asked for this could be
detrimental. He says, "that's why we kept it so tight."
"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated
Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified
information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly
like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.
Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has
leaked information designed to harm President Trump.
Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials
may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about
today.
UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open
hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating
himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against
the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
This line of questioning from
@SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked
Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What
is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper
from when Comey was fired in May:
Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one
of the articles of impeachment.
- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from
him.
Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary
Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified
in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special
prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special
counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.
UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at
least part of it has:
Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman
of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r
So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy
to bring down the elected president
#ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9
UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the
former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing
where Comey has implicated her.
Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?
Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington
University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:
Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to
force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions
UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media
narrative during his questioning of Comey.
Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted
exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger.
Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.
UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has
an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from
leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media
director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:
President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the
owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.
UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats
AND now the fake news media.
Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about
Russia that are just "dead wrong"
I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will
check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.
UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking
very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him
to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.
Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."
Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition
party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.
Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.
UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact
Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.
Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators -
and they will demand some kind of repayment
The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their
own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of
the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.
UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in
serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated
Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.
Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without
any senator having even asked.
UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will
make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.
Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of
James Comey's Senate testimony
UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama,
and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is
in full swing:
Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.
Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te
UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak
detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading
officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to
investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.
Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama,
and Hillary Clinton for obstruction
UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this
hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction
of justice."
"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the
idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair,"
Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).
Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to
Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest
cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and
issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation
of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should
be described.
"At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to
call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make
a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something
separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice
Department," Comey said.
Is not this CIA or Mossad trying to implicate Russians? why nobody asks relevant
questions? Russia is way too convenient bogeyman to exclude such a possibility. Russians were
under the gun already in 2016. In such circumstances they would prefer to lie low, not to do such
stupid things.
June 7, 2017 An NSA document purporting to show Russian military hacker attempts to access a
Florida company which makes voter registration software is sent anonymously to
The Intercept . A low-level NSA contractor, Reality Winner, above, is arrested almost immediately.
What's wrong with this picture? A lot.
Who Benefits?
Start with the question of who benefits – cui bono – same as detectives do when assessing
a crime.
Trump looks bad as another trickle of information comes out connecting something Russian to something
2016 election. Intelligence community (IC) looks like they are onto something, a day or so before
ousted FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress on related matters. The Intercept looks
like it contributed to burning a source. Which potential leaker is going to them in the future? If
potential leakers are made to think twice, another win for the IC. The FBI made an arrest right away,
nearly simultaneous to the publication, with the formal charges coming barely an hour after The Intercept
published. The bust is sure thing according to the very publicly released information. No Ed Snowden
hiding out in Russia this time. IC looks good here. More evidence is now in the public domain that
the Russians are after our election process. Seems as if the IC has been right all along.
What Happened is Curious and Curiouser
Now let's look at what we know so far about how this happened.
A 25-year-old improbably-named Reality Winner leaves behind a trail long and wide on social media
of anti-Trump stuff, including proclaiming herself a member of The Resistance. Never mind, she takes
her Top Secret clearance with her out of the Air Force (she had been
stationed with the military's 94th Intelligence Squadron out of Fort Meade, Maryland, co-located
with the NSA's headquarters) and scores a job with an NSA contractor. Despite the lessons of too-much-access
the Snowden episode should have taught the NSA, Winner apparently enjoys all sorts of classified
documents – her Air Force expertise was in Afghan matters, so it is unclear why she would have access
to info on Russia hacking of U.S. domestic companies.
Within only about 90 days of starting her new job, she prints out the one (and only one apparently,
why not more?) document in question and mails it to The Intercept. She also uses her work computer
inside an NSA facility to write to the Intercept
twice about this same time.
Winner has a clearance. She was trained as a Dari, Pashto, and Farsi linguist by the Air Force.
She knows how classified stuff works. She has been told repeatedly, as all persons with a clearance
are, that her computer, email, printing, and phone are monitored. She mailed the document from Augusta,
Georgia, the city where she lives and where the NSA facility is located. She practiced no tradecraft,
did nothing to hide her actions and many things to call attention to them. It is very, very unclear
why she took the actions she did under those circumstances.
The Document
The Intercept meanwhile drops by their friendly neighborhood NSA contact and shows them the document.
NSA very publicly confirms the veracity of the document (unusual in itself, officially the Snowden
and Manning documents remain unconfirmed) and then makes sure the
open-court
document filed is not sealed and includes the information on how the spooks know the leaked doc
was printed inside the NSA facility. Winner went on to make a full confession to the FBI. The upshot?
This document is not a plant. The NSA wants you to very much know it is real. The Russians
certainly are messing with our election.
But funny thing. While the leaked NSA document seems to be a big deal, at least to the general
public, it sort of isn't. It shows one piece of analysis suggesting but not confirming the GRU, Russian
military intelligence, tried to steal some credentials and gain access to a private
company . No US sources and methods, or raw technical intel, are revealed, the crown jewel stuff.
There is no evidence the hack accomplished anything at all, never mind anything nefarious. The hack
took place months ago and ran its course, meaning the Russian operation was already dead. The Russians
were running a run-of-the-mill spearfishing attack, potentially effective, but nothing especially
sophisticated. You get similar stuff all the time trying to harvest your credit card information.
The leaked document looks like a big deal but isn't.
Another issue. The Intercept has a lot of very smart people working for it, people with real-world
intelligence and tradecraft experience. People who know about
microdot encoding on printed documents, one of the tells here, and people who know they don't
show their whole hand when asking the NSA for a comment. The Intercept journalist volunteered to
an NSA contracting company that the envelope received was
postmarked to Augusta, where Winner lived and worked. Like Reality Winner and her own security
training, it is very, very unclear why the Intercept took the actions it did under those circumstances.
So For Now
So, look, what we know about this story may represent .01% of the whole picture, and that tiny
sliver of visible information is only what the government has chosen to reveal. And sometimes a coincidence
is just a coincidence. Sometimes smart people make dumb mistakes.
But that's not the way you place your bets, especially when dealing with the IC who are good at
these kinds of games. At this very early stage I'm going to say there are too many coincidences and
too many mistakes to simple shrug it all off. Too many of the benefits in this have accrued on the
side of the IC than is typical when a real whistleblower shares classified documents with a journalist.
If it frightens you that I invoke the question of the Deep State using journalists to smear the
President, just forget I said anything. But if we're willing to believe the Russians somehow successfully
manipulated our entire society to elect their favored candidate, then we can at least ask a few questions.
Otherwise, if anyone hears Winner's lawyer use the word "patsy," let me know, OK?
BONUS: Matt Cole, one of The Intercept journalists credited to this story, was also involved in
the
outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with CIA torture claims. Small world!
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Well there you go America you have your Russian hacker, and it's a CIA contractor who is in charge of running the DNC computer
system. This is how Democrats are claiming the Russian hack of the election and they're computer systems were rigged by Russia, because
the owner of CrowdStrike who runs the DNC computer systems is Russian.
This officially destroys the Russia/Trump collusion Democrat conspiracy theory, because the DNC hired a Russian to run the
parties computer system to make it look like a Russian hack just in case Trump won the election. Trump needs to bring up this man
on Twitter, because the mentioning of this man by the President would absolutely destroy the Russia/Trump collusion. This kills the
narrative by Democrats on Russia/Trump collusion for one reason only...The DNC has colluded with a Russian hacker to work on their
computer system.
TYT Politics reporter Michael Tracey (http://www.twitter.com/mtracey)
reports that CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm retained by the DNC to analyze its "hacked" servers, had a contract with the FBI.
TYT Politics reporter Michael Tracey (http://www.twitter.com/mtracey)
reports that CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm retained by the DNC to analyze its "hacked" servers, had a contract with the FBI.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Well there you go America you have your Russian hacker, and it's a CIA contractor who is in charge of running the DNC computer
system. This is how Democrats are claiming the Russian hack of the election and they're computer systems were rigged by Russia, because
the owner of CrowdStrike who runs the DNC computer systems is Russian.
This officially destroys the Russia/Trump collusion Democrat conspiracy theory, because the DNC hired a Russian to run the
parties computer system to make it look like a Russian hack just in case Trump won the election. Trump needs to bring up this man
on Twitter, because the mentioning of this man by the President would absolutely destroy the Russia/Trump collusion. This kills the
narrative by Democrats on Russia/Trump collusion for one reason only...The DNC has colluded with a Russian hacker to work on their
computer system.
"... Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting US Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, US taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang. ..."
"... For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel. ..."
"... Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency." ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Neither Comey nor Mueller – who are reported to be " joined at the hip " – deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence ..."
The mainstream U.S. media sells the mythical integrity of fired FBI Director Comey and special Russia-gate prosecutor Mueller,
but the truth is they have long histories as pliable political operatives
Posted on June 07,
2017 June 6, 2017 Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey
as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into
proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their
impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration
(Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of
the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence
Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal
responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.
Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded,
"that the system had been blinking red
." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed "
criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed
at all.)
Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten "war on terror," which only served
to
exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .
Unfulfilled Promise
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever
witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive
and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing
him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to
Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller
directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants
who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more
detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions
in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were
brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned
out to be terrorists .
A History of Failure
Long before he became FBI Director, serious
questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting US Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering
up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes.
When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, US taxpayers footed
a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.
For his part, Deputy Attorney General
James Comey , too, went
along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance
of Americans and
torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without
charges or right to counsel.
Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing
a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's
singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification
of a "state of emergency."
The Comey/Mueller Myth
What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men from forcing the sick Attorney
General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing
board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.
The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and
lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs after his own agents warned
against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear.
Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute
NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
Neither Comey nor Mueller – who are reported to be "
joined at the hip " – deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like
"G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with
former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses
of power along with official incompetence.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships
the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out
against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller
exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert
Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is
archived
in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled "
Questions for the FBI Nominee
" was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington
Post page.)
Looks more and more like psyop operation -- a part of a Neo-McCarthyism propaganda campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press in the first place? Who benefits? ..."
"... Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and media wants. Sigh. ..."
"... P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what to write and how to write it. ..."
"... If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot. ..."
"... That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell. ..."
"... Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder of eBay. ..."
"... CIA Agents Caught Red Handed Trolling Alternative Media Sites http://humansarefree.com/2017/06/cia-agents-caught-red-handed-trolling.html I think we talked about this years ago, in regards to Israeli paid trolls, but we've gone so far into the Panopticon control grid, what difference does it make. ..."
"... I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just that. ..."
"... ...which of course how psyops works. Because this leak will fuel more of the Trump/Russian conspiracies and hatred in the MSM. ..."
"... Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered up. ..."
"... This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves. ..."
"... Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater? ..."
"... Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info, as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups in our society benefit from this greatly. ..."
"... I haven't trusted The Intercept since they ran their hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it. The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money. ..."
"... She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she leak deep state material to smear her "enemies". ..."
"... Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups? ..."
"... Omidyar being behind the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement. ..."
"... And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill. Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept? ..."
"... Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow! to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive". They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers behind it, or truly rock the boat. ..."
"... There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual interference with voting system beyond data gathering. ..."
"... Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That can improve the discipline in the shop. ..."
"... This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs (the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically, they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world. For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate of the losers. They are all the same. ..."
"... Sounds like a con job from start to finish. Along the lines of bellingcat, SOHR ect. Just another method of disseminating propaganda. ..."
"... this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to Russian data. ..."
"... I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final coin-toss. ..."
"... really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing? ..."
"... Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there). ..."
"... If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of the day. ..."
"... Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. ..."
"... All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT. ..."
"... Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way. ..."
"... I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end. ..."
"... The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy job checking up on their source. ..."
"... thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what an effective and professional attack would actually look like). ..."
"... as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's. ..."
"... i've been reading douglas valentine's book on the phoenix program and other CIA criminality https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Organized-Crime-Illegal-Operations/dp/0997287012 ..."
"... It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept? Why not the NYtimes or wapo? ..."
"... It's becoming more difficult daily to find something that doesn't stink. I see it as an attempt to further bury the censored NBC interview with Putin where he explained several hard truths, one of which I alluded to yesterday. Compare vid here, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/nbc-edited-out-putins-hard-truths-heres.html with uncensored one here, which includes transcript, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54688 ..."
Yesterday The Intercept
published a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now
been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.
FBI
search (pdf) and
arrest warrant
(pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept 's reporters and editors
which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the
source. It leaves one scratching the head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either
way - the incident confirms what
skeptics had long determined : The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking
state secrets of public interests.
The Intercept was created
to privatize the National
Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that
the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking
laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds
of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of
journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept . Only some
5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no
idea what the unpublished pages would provide.
The Intercept , a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major
owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and "philanthropist"
who's (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation
is "investing" for "returns". Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people
from the fascists RSS party,
ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network
also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had
cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely
implicate Omidyar's PayPal.
The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. It
first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras - all involved in publishing the
Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked the NSA stack.
It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way. The Intercept pieces
are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream "liberal" to libertarian slant. Some
were highly partisan
anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda . The website
seems to have no regular publishing schedule
at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only few of them make public waves. Some
of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and
alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized
editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said
to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is
begging for
reader donations .
Yesterday's published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters)
begins :
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier
and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last
November's presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained
by The Intercept.
The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept
publishes along the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack
". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations " - i.e someone looked and maybe copied
data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in
this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information.
It is different from a "cyberattack" like
Stuxnet which was intended to
create large damage,
That girl's social media accounts is filled with neocon propaganda and anti-Trump posts. Intercept
is really really stupid for spreading this deepstate pro-war desinformation.
Wikileaks twitter account has good comment on it. It is clear that The Intercept is a way to coopt
hackers and leakers. She possibly would not have been arrested with Democrats in power. The New
York Times and the Intercept have a campaign to leak to US sources so that whistleblowing is not
treason.
I take it that there's not even the slightest or far reaching bit of evidence at all in the leaked
documents that implicates Russia (or the US government) of any mischief.
So why even go out of your way to leak these supposedly worthless documents to the press
in the first place? Who benefits?
Deep state benefits - analysis(?) is leaked which show as you say no proof, but it keeps
the anti-russia propaganda going for another month or so - just as the anti-trump deep state and
media wants. Sigh.
Thanks for this. Even before reading this account, I was inclined to think "fake news" because
the Deep State is such a prolific and relentless generator of propaganda. And also, I think we're
pretty much screwed regardless of who is in power. My only hope is that it all doesn't end up
in mushroom-clouds.
It was obvious that The Intercept became a US Inteligence Industry pawn the minute it started
to denounce Al Assad on 2016. It was too good to be true from the beginning. Snowden should say
something about "his friends" Greenwald and Poitras !! As far as it is descrived in the above
article, the R J Winner affaire could be just another Psy Op by the Langley People
Its interesting how Assange and Wikileaks support this deep-state leaker. Why?
Assange supports all leakers, regardless of what they leak or to whom. Any other stance would
amount to shooting himself in the foot.
On another note, what is extraordinary is to see a Deep State leaker busted by the Deep State.
How batty is that? I mean, she was only trying to help them against "big bad Russia", wasn't she?
So?
Yes the intercept gave them self away when Greenwald wrote a piece denouncing the Syrian government
and the SAA back in 2015. He occasionally has sane and progressive expressions like when he speaks
against the fascist state of Israel. He gave himself away again on the propaganda outlet Democracy
now. He was eluding to the fact of Russian collusion with the recent POTUS elections and the Flyn
fiasco. Here again he gave himself away. He is bought and paid for by the elite like most journo's
in our deluded western countries.
P.S if any of you get a chance try to catch the interview on RT where German journo, who
is unfortunately dead, states categorically that CIA and his bosses would instruct him on what
to write and how to write it.
although a fan of the intercept at first, i soured when they announced they were spying on
their readership. never trust a billionaire. betrayal is the only route to billionaire status.
greenwald and poitras at the oscars turned my stomach. not a word about chelsea manning
or any of the others ... greenwald and poitras were the 'stars'.
now, no matter this winner is a loser or no, they've betrayed another one of the people
who've put them where they are. they're cannibals.
since i stopped reading the intercept i was unaware of their support for al-cia-duh and
the jihadists in syria. that just stinks.
Maybe someone at The Intercept thought this was an attempt by the NSA (not the "deep state, there
isn't one") to burn them, so they toss the document back at the NSA to see what happens.
Why The Intercept? If you read most Clintonist blogs, you'll quickly realise that Greenwald
is up there with Assange and Putin as satanic (Trumpist) agents, so an Internet-aware Clintonist
sending documents to The Intercept or Wikileaks suggests some other purpose than simply leaking
information adverse to Trump.
Most Clintonists have jumped on this NSA "document" as further solid proof of Putin's culpability
which just happened to be "leaked" at about the same time a favourable interview with Putin was
being broadcast on the MSM.
If Reality Leigh Winner goes to trial and receives serious prison time, then The Intercept
was wrong, but until then I'll think she's a Clintonist useful idiot.
Actually Wikileaks/Assange have no idea if this info is even true. Who leaks this? Well obviously
the same propagandists we heard past 6 months that want the world to think Russia and Trump won
the election/the pathetic accusation that Russia somehow ruled the election to Trump. As far as
we know the leaks could not only lack evidence but it could also be pure fake. So no, I dont see
why Wikileaks and Assange would support this. But thats me.
Posted by: falcemartello | Jun 6, 2017 7:51:05 AM | 14
That would be Udo Ulfkotte. He used to work for FAZ. You have to take into account that
he tried to live from writing books after FAZ and conspiracy theories do sell.
Of course everybody the US, Russia, Qatar, companies have a PR greyzone trying to influence
public opinion.
Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16
Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff. The solution is obvious
but I don't hear anybody calling for it: Paper ballots. It is simple, works and is fast if you
have a good counting system in place. Lots of countries still use it.
Accepting that leakers could be fake would destroy the business model. But no, if it was fake
they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied good lawyers, I suppose.
Greenwald and Poitras are now the only two people with full access to the complete cache
of NSA files ... just Glenn and Laura at the for-profit journalism company created by the founder
of eBay.
Whistleblowing has traditionally served the public interest. In this case, it is about to serve
the interests of a billionaire starting a for-profit media business venture. This is truly unprecedented.
Never before has such a vast trove of public secrets been sold wholesale to a single billionaire
as the foundation of a for-profit company.
and who sold them? not edward snowden ... he gave them away ... to the two 'operators' who
sold them to omidyar.
after death, devastation, and destruction outright ... deceit it the usofa's main growth industry.
and hey, 'progressives' can do it too! and still huff and puff themselves up - among their temporary,
transactional 'friends' anyway - with righteousness indignation.
Thats whats called desinformation or psyops., you already for example seems claim that this
is true facts that have been leaked, but we dont know that. Or do you actually believe the
whole Russia-Trump-hacking-claims we heard past months?
It is a document about what someone in the NSA believes , it is completely meaningless.
Greenwald and Scahill are kind of distancing themselves from the article. The document is just
enough to cause headlines that convince trusting people that Russia hacked the election. Arresting
the leaker makes sure everybody heard about it. Who wrote it by the way
Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle, Ryan Grim
They need 4 people to publish a document and burn a source?
I assume Russia has a cyber capacity in its defense portfolio, like everybody else.
The most likely scenario is Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange having a very personal private
war after the state department leaks. I also think, it is possible that Hillary Clinton and
Putin had a very personal not so private war after Hillary announced that she would do everything
to prevent a realignment of Post Soviet States. And employing Victoria Nuland to achieve just
that.
What do politicians in the US think - that they can attack without anybody trying to hit back?
>>>>> Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:08:44 AM | 19
Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 6, 2017 7:55:51 AM | 16
Read the @intercept they even agreed with the NSA to redact the stuff.
Well that's a big fat F in Black Ops 101 for you.
The Intercept just returns the document to the NSA - end of.
The Intercept asks the NSA to review and redact the document - it keeps going. Returning the
received document rather than a re-typed one might raise questions within the NSA but could be
put down to operator error at The Intercept but re-typed documents would get The Intercept no
further in working out what's actually happening.
I'm not sure if this is what is happening but the whole thing is weird.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 6, 2017 8:11:10 AM | 20
But no, if it was fake they would not go the extra effort to arrest a leaker who will be supplied
good lawyers, I suppose.
Are you from one of those USG "perception management" projects? Well, if you are, American
taxpayers should be pissed off if this is all the "best and brightest" can come up with. The USG
IC has an annual budget of $65 billion so if this is a black op., they have more than enough money
to be able to afford the arrest of the "leaker" and even pay for her to get decently lawyered
up.
But that's not what's really important here. WikiLeaks and Assange say they have no responsibility
for the content they leak, and that no one has evidence that the sources of the DNC leak are
Russian. But these leaks and tweets damage WikiLeaks' credibility. If they're not scrutinizing
their own leaks on the base level of their content, it's not hard to imagine that WikiLeaks
could unwittingly become part of someone else's agenda (like, say, a Russian one). "If you
are a legitimate leaker, why go with WikiLeaks? You go with The Intercept or the New York Times,
like they did with the Panama Papers" says Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist at UC Berkeley
who studies the organization. "Wikileaks is a pastebin for spooks, and they're happy to be
used that way."
One would think that all parties would be interested in this news. The Dems, of course, want to
make Russian links. But doesn't Trump want to use this to prove his theory that the popular vote
was wrong? Let's not turn this into a game where everyone interprets things based on ideology.
The whole dang point is that someone was trying to infiltrate our voting system. Maybe they failed,
maybe it was just a reconnaissance mission, but it happened. That is news.
Moon is obviously showing extreme bias. Instead of trying to figure out and analyze the implications
he uses this as a way to score points. Points against the Intercept. Points against the Dems,
and so on. How tiring.
This whole episode smacks of a psy-op to me. If - and this is a big if - the Russians did
hack into any voting systems, I'd be more willing to believe it was to collect evidence of malfeasance
on the part of our own government than it would have been to manipulate the results themselves.
Important to note is that Putin just mentioned in his interview with Megyn Kelly that it
doesn't matter who's president of the United States because no matter what, the policy remains
the same. That's a pretty direct indictment of the integrity of US elections, so what better time
to up the ante with respect to the obvious lies about Russian interference in our elections than
right after Putin calls our elections Kabuki theater?
More diversion folks. The real elephant in the room is the U$A electoral system. It's rotten to
it's core. Regardless of ANY information coming from ANY source, the corporate overlords OWN the
voting systems at the national level here in the U$A. SO, we here in the U$A, can believe whoever
we want to, but, our votes, at least at national level, are meaningless.
P.S- Read around folks, but, watch what people do, not what the say.
Well for one she is not a whistleblower, she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the
deep state. She I believe leaked material just to attack Trump and Russia even more with info,
as we have seen so many times now past months. She nor we as readers have any idea if there is
any truth to the claim to start with. So why leak it? Well obviously, like past months, some groups
in our society benefit from this greatly.
The article even says that NO EVIDENCE has been presented: "While the document provides rare window
into the NSA's understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying
"raw" intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to
be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the documentbecause a single
analysis is not necessarily definitive."
she is another anti-Trump neocon working for the deep state
Three points:
1. She is not a neo-con, she's a neo-lib/liberal interventionist/R2P liberal/Clintonist. There
is a big difference between neo-cons and neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists.
The neo-cons do it because they can, the latter, who are far more dangerous, do it "for the greater
good" although they rarely ask the people who it's being done for what they think and they have
a far greater degree of "religious"certainty about what they're doing.
To paraphrase Putin in his recent interview, "why would he interfere in American elections as
he gets the same foreign policy crap regardless of which side wins?"
2. The neo-cons lost big time in Iraq and as a result have little real power in Washington
beyond being disruptive.
3. There is no deep state in the United States now because it's totally visible, and since
both the neo-cons and the neo-libs/liberal interventionists/R2P liberals/Clintonists have the
same objective there is no need for secrecy or conspiracies. If anyone needs to revive the "deep
state" it's the Trumpists.
All these conspiracy theories are a waste of time and energy because there is so much real
dangerous crap going on that needs to be attended to first.
Ghostship. True enough. But knowing it is still different from effectively dealing with it.
The elite/CIA controlled mass media still has a lot of power to persuade people as do the corporations
that finance political elections. As well as the people who make money from arms sales. These
people who may be loosely referred to as 'deep state' don't want to give up any of that power/money.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger."
Assuming the neocons and neolibs represent different interests is the same as assuming the democrats
and republicans represent different masters. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and until
we can come together and agree on who the real enemy is, they'll continue eating our lunch with
impunity.
She follows a neocon agenda (war against afghanistan, war against Syria, hatered against
Russia, hatred against foreign policy that Trump have i.e), she works for the deep state, she
leak deep state material to smear her "enemies".
Who are those who spread this bs to the MSM about Trump and Russia constantly for past
months? Where does it come from if not from the deep state groups?
This is easy to tell but difficult to snuff out in the end. Once Hillary and co. started railing
against paid Kremlin-trolls on alt-right and various forum sites, you knew that it was something
that they had been doing for quite sometime and, indeed, had been losing the battle. At that point,
it was best to throw up their hands and concoct the victim-story, even though we TPTB probably
pioneered the tactics (color revolutions, ngos, etc.).
Perhaps there were Kremlin agents on our boards. Perhaps there are some here. But truth, or
a slightly biased truth, still stands in their corner, so I refuse to complain about Russia agents.
The CIA OTOH. They can GTFO.
i used to like greenwald long before his time at the intercept... the intercept smelt funny
right from the beginning.. i haven't followed it, in spite of having enjoyed reading greenwald
when he was more independent..
this whole story stinks to high heaven.. something is weird about the whole thing.. can't put
my finger on it.. seems like more bs basically.. the usa is bonkers at this point..
@8 opereta... i see it similar to you..
@43 uncle scam... some of those folks are still around, but more of them are not..
As you say, appalling tradecraft by both the leaker and the recipient. I would have thought even
a cursory security check before giving her any security clearance would have unearthed her extreme
views on social media.
Some general thoughts on the subject of leaks from the Trump administration -
Excellent article. A warning to heed and I hope it gets out far and wide. Omidyar being behind
the Intercept has always been an iffy proposition at best, and it has never sat well that Greenwald
is apparently satisfied with such an arrangement.
What a circus of distraction that grabs for public attention; its chief element is distraction,--
and its goal is distraction. In the end, Trump will probably go farther to accommodate the deep
state, since what it aims to destroy is any chance for improvement of relations with Russia. This
a PSYOPS extravaganza. The moronic level of political debate is not going to improve with the
introduction of Reality Winner ( whose name sounds a bit silly, in this context).
The confirmed partisans will wolf down such farce without even tasting it. These absurd pratfalls
will stop abruptly when the risk to our survival becomes obvious; but something on the order of
a miracle would need to happen soon, to avert disaster. Trump's base will loudly congratulate
him, whatever concessions he makes to survive politically; and the rationally unmoored Dems will
sign on to any confidence game if it gets the results they are after.
Certainly, a closer observation of the details can help. Thanks to the author of this article,
our host, and those who have commented. The alternative is for life to become a work of fiction.
Outstanding reporting, b. I saw a report on the microlending "phenomenon" in India on PBS a
long time ago. It was heralded then. I'll have to dive into your link to survey the damage. Thx
again.
Hey b, John Kiriakou chimed in saying "@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole
burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy"
And you just know Mark Ames will have a piece up bashing Omidyar, Greenwald and Scahill.
Speaking of Scahill, other than a weekly podcast, what exactly does he do for the Intercept?
Greenwald is a self-serving hack and the Intercept functions alongside outlets like DemocracyNow!
to provide a Democrat-friendly perspective on the world to people who think they are very "progressive".
They will never challenge the fundamental precepts of US imperialism and the oligarchic powers
behind it, or truly rock the boat.
There's a chance they got played. As noted, the documents don't actual show evidence of actual
interference with voting system beyond data gathering. But now we have a leaker who's social
media bills her as part of the resistance. And in this environment, how are the optics going to
look like prosecuting someone who is being passed off as having leaked evidence of malfeasance?
I think they rushed too quickly to publish.
Nice to see so many finally coming to the realisation that Greenwald, Poitras and the Intercept
are disinfo operatives.... Waiting for the rest of you to begin questioning The Snowjob too.
"From the Russian attempts to redraw international borders by force, to Iran destabilizing
the Middle East, and to the global threat of terrorism, which affects people everywhere. It
seems that the world has become much more dangerous today than ever since the fall of communism,
about a quarter of a century ago,"- he said at a meeting of vice-president.
Actually, it is a good question how Winner got the access to the file. "Top Secret" is actually
a low level of secrecy, without specific restriction who "needs to know" it. Practical problem
for the wanna be leaker is to find "a needle in the haystack". Probably the chain of folders had
self-explanatory names, which is like posting in on the billboard for all and sundry working for
NSA. That in itself can be "leaking with a borrowed hand".
The content does not seem to be secret in the sense of revealing "sources and methods", just
a scrubbed analysis with conclusions. A major part of the mission of intelligence agency to to
careful draw conclusions from the gathered data so they are useful to the decision makers: access
to information allows to engage in disinformation. But what to do with the obsolete analysis,
prepared for the PDM, previous decision maker? Post it on a billboard, if you still like PDM.
Alternatively, the document was prepared in such a way that it was actually politically
harmless but it could snare the leaker who would be triumphantly and publicly "executed". That
can improve the discipline in the shop.
Poor girl. But those Intercept people, why they did not at least re-type the document before
showing it to anyone?
This is silly nonsense. There is no difference at all between the neocons and the neolibs
(the neolords). They come from exactly the same place and believe in exactly the same thing. Specifically,
they are atychiphobs; they cannot endure any form of failure. So they always must attach themselves
to whatever they perceive as the winning side. And ultimately rule the rest of the losing world.
For them that's all there is; Hillary is an example, and most rich individuals also. They would
absolutely prefer death to loserdom. So of course they have no concerns at all about the fate
of the losers. They are all the same.
And speaking of psyops and propaganda, the Deep State (of course there is a deep state (the
neolords) whom common selves cannot comprehend) is now in the business of producing psyoperative
YouTube videos. See if you can spot the subliminal propaganda in this one (hint -- it is not at
all about how Russians perceive Americans):
"How on Earth do these kids ( Winner) manage to get that kind of jobs?"
Exactly! I thought you had to be very special, bright and so on to get this kind of jobs here
we have a 25 year old girl, that is named...Reality Winner and she has social media where she
posts alot of selfies of herself and have a twitter feed like high school student. She seems quite
dorky to me. That she has already been in and out of the air force is even more bizarre. This
is the kind of morons ruling this world.
The Intercept article is as inept as the NSA document! it's mostly a cartoon, and things like
guessing corporate emails are hardly espionage - they are normal ways of figuring out how to contact
people in the professional world, NOT a security threat. Phishing them ought to be illegal, but
clearly the FBI doesn't give a crap until it happens to Clinton's campaign chair. At least it
is SO common that normal people KNOW not to fall for it. what a bunch of drivel! If the NSA had
any actual intelligence that the origin of the emails was Russia, you would think that might be
part of the explanation, but the cartoon only says "probably within"...
Then the Intercept spends pages (and pages) arguing for more $$ for the NSA (!) and to centralize
control of US elections to the federal level where all this 'insecurity' can be properly controlled
by responsible people (like the NSA, or the POTUS).
Topping that off was Amy Goodman showing an interview with a Clinton mouthpiece trumpeting
propaganda that this whole "Russian" scheme is a way to get contact info of registered voters
to aim "fake news" at them....... anybody here who is a registered voter knows that the minute
you sign up you are permanently on the list for daily piles of glossy lies from PACS and nightly
phone surveys about what crafted message would work 'if the election were held today'. Where I
live, the Dems have so much money that they poll the crap out of us during city-level campaigns.
(and after the election they can't be bothered with what their voters care about.)
this whole thing is such a circus! and yes, the NSA has access to far more info than these
stupid documents allude to, not to mention that the US has got to have some massive access to
Russian data.
I should add: If Putin were directly responsible for hacking anything, Clinton should kiss
Putin's who-cares-what for waiting until AFTER the primaries. She got to be part of the final
coin-toss.
really, why is this NSA document even considered whistle-blowing?
The firewall set up by (or at least 'persuaded' by) the U.S. intelligence to toss out a few
useless Snowden scraps to the peons? Why would the Intercept NOT report report this to their intel
masters? Does anyone here really think 1) the Intercept has NOT been compromised since day one,
2) everybody and and everything at the Intercept is NOT closely monitored by the intel community?
They probably have a department just for the Intercept. So whether the Intercept actually ratted
out Winner is irrelevant - the NSA probably knows what flavor of coffee the mail guy at the Intercept
was holding when he picked up the previously examined mail. The only way any Top Secret document
is making its way to the Intercept is if the NSA or FBI created and mailed the document themselves.
And if the alleged journalist did not report receipt of the document to the FBI, then THEY would
face jail time if the FBI found it during a raid.
How did Winner come about this information?
Setting aside the antics of the Intercept, let's consider how preposterous this story is
at face value. She's basically a translator for a few Middle Eastern languages. So she's reading
email or web sites or listening to phone calls and doing her translating thing. It's not like
she's a high-level analyst preparing briefings for the National Intelligence director - she's
a damn low-level translator (no offense to NSA translators out there).
Why on earth would someone in that position have ANY Top Secret memos on Russian hackers or
the election. Do people really think there is (at her workplace) a network-accessible folder labeled
'Top Secret' that anyone with a Top Secret clearance can browse through? No - that's not how it
works. Does anyone think they have a 'Top Secret' mailing list to distribute memos? Nope. In fact,
can ANYONE give me the least plausible reason why some nobody Arabic-language translator would
ever even be able to SEE a Top Secret memo regarding a subject she has absolutely no involvement
with?
Computers at Intel Agencies
If Winner DID manage to stumble upon a Top Secret memo on her work network unrelated to
her job, then her supervisor would have known it within minutes. Everything anybody does is constantly
monitored and logged, right down to the keystroke. SHE would know that. In fact, she would be
fired for not reporting this impossible access to top secret information immediately. She would
be further punished for even having the document linger on her screen for more than a second or
two. There's a reason they put TOP SECRET at the very top of every page. Classified documents
also have their own security/surveillance/monitoring mechanisms. The document itself (or the document
management system) knows or is told who is allowed to read it or even see that it exists. It would
record her access, even if all the other security and monitoring software the agency had failed
completely. So you get the idea. Even if she saw this document (unlikely) and did NOT report the
inappropriate access, she would eventually be frog-walked out of the building before the end of
the day.
Printing
I won't belabor the point, but everything from all the security, monitoring and logging items
above apply moreso for printing anything. Top Secret documents (and their networks) do not
allow you to print them at all, and certainly not on some random office printer. Presuming
she did the impossible and get a Top Secret document printed out (which would all be logged),
how did she get it out of her controlled-access area and the building itself? Hide it in her purse?
Tell the guard, "I'm taking this folder of top secret stuff home to work on, but it's OK -
I have a top secret clearance..."
All modern printers and copy machines have an invisible watermark that identifies the time/date
you printed a page and the serial number of the machine. If she copied it somewhere, then they
copy can be traced to a certain machine and date/time. She's busted either way if the feds got
their hands on it, and SHE KNOWS THAT.
Impossible Conclusion
Now given all the above and her knowledge of how all that works, does anyone think she's STILL
going to naively print out and mail a hard copy of Top Secret information to a known compromised,
well-monitored news site... because she doesn't like Trump??
Sorry - but unless someone can prove she has an extra chromosome or two, I have to believe
this is a charade. She won't go to jail because she's in on it with the NSA and it's not a real
Top Secret document anyway. NO intelligence agency will ever verify or deny something you show
them is either legitimate or Top Secret, so even that part is wrong. If you call them to ask about
a document you have, they will politely put you on hold so they can dispatch some DHS thugs to
kick in your door and retrieve said document - without telling you anything either way.
Why would she do this then? Well, if she knew she wasn't really going to be tried to go
to prison and the NSA is 'in' on it, then I'm sure there's a large check waiting for her somewhere.
How much do you think it would take to buy out a translator from her crappy .gov job? Plus, she
gets to stick it to Trump and those evil Russians. It's a win-win!
Maybe I'm too cynical nowadays, but this whole thing is preposterous beyond belief. Am I the
only one that thinks this whole thing stinks to high heaven? I'm amazed the bar is so low for
these fabrications.
I tend to agree with the hint, hint - #RealityWinner is an obvious PsyOp. Her employer
probably had a deal for her - agree to be "used", play the part in a little prosecution game we'll
have going, make sure you leak to Cook - and don't worry, you'll be well rewarded in the end.
Why her? the name, of course - sends a nice message. And her youth - get a little sympathy
going. from a gullible public (not any of us though).
The timing of this leak and the choice of media outlet is very convenient for the Establishment
Dems/Deep State Russia investigation. Leaking to the Intercept, which has credibility in the alternative
media, would be a convenient way to get the story covered in the MSM and leftist media. It certainly
helps to distract Berners from the Seth Rich story. Some interns at the Intercept did a sloppy
job checking up on their source.
thank you for this. i left a comment on that article yesterday about how dumb the technical
aspects were and apparently you noticed as well (i also mentioned stuxnet as an example of what
an effective and professional attack would actually look like). the thought that a
macro in a word file (who lets those run by default anyway?) could pivot into some elaborate firmware/hardware
exploit is just dumb. even the article mentions that machines and procedures vary from state to
state and even city to city. seems like a lot of work to put into changing votes for a few thousand
people.
as i also mentioned: hillary won durham by a WIDE margin (almost 100k votes). seems
like any "hacking" worked to her advantage, not trump's.
and he makes a lot of the points you do here regarding the intercept. as much as i respect
greenwald, he and the other top tier hires don't need that site. they've got enough leverage to
start their own site or even just stick to facebook and/or twitter and then "third party" out
to big sites. this would give them exposure without tying them down to one billionaire with his
own agendas and biases.
glenn used to have some oddly toxic opinions (anti-chavez whining and supposed initial support
for the iraq war) and came around. he's not a dummy. i also doubt he has any malevolent intentions
given his charitable work in brazil and what seems like genuine concern for "the law" and privacy
and etc.
the documents were trusted to him and a few others. there was a reason for that. every non-journalist
(and i include many intercept writers in that group) since is just a parasite using him and the
documents as a host. time to swat them away and be truly indie. (not holding my breath).
side note: "reality winner"? wow. when i first saw the headlines i thought she was a former
contestant on "big brother" or something. we'll see how much vocal support she gets from the democrats.
again - not holding breath.
It looks like a real half-arsed psyops -- here is the "Russia did it" smoking gun we've all
been waiting for and it gets sorta rolled out but not trumpeted hysterically. Why the Intercept?
Why not the NYtimes or wapo? Just like the dossier a few months ago, generated some smoke
but in the end its a weak petard. Did Sessions tamp it down?
Anonymous Hippopotamus | Jun 6, 2017 4:38:46 PM |
84
@77 paveway... thanks.. you are preaching to the choir here.. none of the story adds up, but the
intercept is one bs outfit plain and simple..
@78/79 merlin.. thanks.. we see it much the same!
this ''russia did it memo'' is so friggin' boring... the usa has lost it's creative imagination
if it ever had one to begin with... hollywood is over and one with.. give it up hollywash..
@82 I remember reading that some crazy number, like 6 million people have security clearances.
That's a lot of people that signed up to keep quiet. I guess a lot of it relates to basic military
stuff, or controlled technology like aircraft parts or whatever.
She speaks Farsi and Pashto, I bet she's CIA who's been promised a lot of $$$ after she serves
a short prison term. It's my guess that what she provided to The Intercept was given to her after
it was manufactured or "doctored". The info published by The Intercept should be considered as
suspicious.
Marym@93 - Thanks. I hesitated to just say 'Iranian' because that didn't seem quite right, but
'Arabic' is obviously wrong. Hey, I'm American. I couldn't even tell you where Farsiland or Pastonia
are on a map. I think... somewhere by Italy? No, wait...
@95 Sounds right. She won't get the full Chelsea Manning treatment. Just a naive patriotic young
American girl who did the right thing. Obviously she was tricked into using that copier. Couple
of months and she''ll get a job at Fox.
@98 ....which she will turn down for a better offer at CNN.
Remember when Greenwald's Brazilian boyfriend was being held by the authorities and accused of
smuggling information from Snowden? Then he got released. Hmm.
Wonder if there was some sort of agreement to the effect that if Greenwald played ball, possible
prosecution against said boyfriend would be held in abeyance. This is a tactic employed by government
lawyers in some cases when they want something. Like a slow-walking of releases from Snowden's
revelations, for instance. And maybe some other dirty business when wanted by the powers that
be, like this "leak" that the NSA thought something could be true , but with the leak not
containing any proof or any supporting raw intelligence.
Holding a sword over the head of the boyfriend might be just the ticket. And couple that with
speculation that Snowden's documents contained revelations about Greenwald's boss, Pierre Omidyar.
Maybe an offer that Greenwald and company could not refuse.
Speculation on my part, of course. But not the first time that such tactics have been deployed.
"... Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money – not the people. ..."
"... Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical enough to see the games that are played. ..."
"... (Trump supported Hillary in 2008) ..."
"... (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was) ..."
Razzel-dazzel faux populist leaders need a reason to betray their base, excuse their caving, and
otherwise toe the establishment line. I call shill opposition to a faux populist President enforcers
. They are joined by apologists who try to explain away betrayals and caving on issues.
Trump is a 'fascist' as much as Obama was a 'Muslim socialist'.
Trump wasn't turned by the Deep State as apologists claim. He knows how faux populist politics
works because he was close to the Clintons and led the 'birther movement'.
Corruption today is as well engineered and covered-up as it was during Tamany Hall in late 1800's
New York City:
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system The Tweed ring at its height was
an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the
courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and
an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.
Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that
US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money
– not the people.
Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical
enough to see the games that are played.
Interestingly, much of the establishment games seem to center on the Clintons. The Hillary camp
(Trump supported Hillary in 2008) helped to keep Obama in line, as much as the Republican
opposition (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was)
. And Hillary's Democratic Party has been the principal force that provided Trump with excuses
to betray his base.
But here's the rub: if Bernie was a sheep-dog for Hillary and Trump's populism was sure to overcome
Hillary's negatives and negativism, then what real choice did American voters have?
Cover Photo: 1871 Cartoon by Tomas Nast depicts Tammany as a ferocious tiger killing democracy.
The image of a tiger was often used to represent the Tammany Hall political movement.
There is a special term for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own existence:
"national security parasites". Their existence does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or
China because want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative positions and streams of income. that
requires certain level of hostilities to be maintained.
Let's assume that Russians are the US enemies. If so, them recent leaks sound like betrayal of Bretchey
Part efforts to decode enigma during WWII. Some damned traitors in Washington have just told the Russians
that their top secret communications have been cracked. Its a bit like the BBC broadcasting that German
enigma machine/ code has been cracked. If true, huge advantage, considerable amount of money and efforts
of NSA (as well taxpayers money) just disappeared in thin air. And today's electronic cipher gear is
much more sophisticated than in the era of Enigma and therefore the loss is so much greater that hypethetical
BBC brodcast.
Notable quotes:
"... What do you think? Would their initials be JB, JC and AS? What do you think? Do you think these "Russian government officials" were discussing such matters on unencrypted, open circuits? No? Well, if these intercepts and decrypts were of classified, secret Russian communications traffic, then the leaker spies have disclosed SCI COMINT. But I suppose they are above the law. " The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence." ..."
"... That means that the US spies were above the working level in the US IC. I will say nothing of the role played by CNN in this betrayal of the United States. ..."
"... By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing government secrets, but I am filled with a great contempt for them. Are the principal spies acting alone? I would think not. The government has many seditionists within it. ..."
"... That JC guy just made quite interesting remarks in an NBC interview. "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Jews were doing and just the historical practices of the Jews, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Jewish technique." Isn't that some deeply fascist stuff to say? ..."
"... b, JC claims "Russia is not our friend." Could he really be so naive as to believe that nations have friends? One could argue more damage has been done to US security by some of our "friends" than our "enemies"- for example, its unclear how NK has hurt US security to date. ..."
"... First of all, Kushner supposedly "ASKED" to do this, not actually "DID" this. Would "ASKING" to do this be just as treasonous an act as if he had "DONE" this? If so, that brings me to . . . Second of all, the Overt Act which must be witnessed by 2 people at the same time . . . must be in direct assistance to an overt enemy declared to be in a State of War against America. Did this Overt Act, if indeed it was one, seek to render assistance to an Overt Enemy in a State of War against America? No. Because Russia is not an Overt Enemy in any Declared State of War. ..."
"... Now . . . is Russia a "covert enemy"? Or maybe just a "covert adversary"? Maybe so. In which case, broadcasting to the world including most of all to Russia itself that we can decrypt their most sensitive strongestly-encrypted communications destroys our ability to do that decrypting. And THAT is a highly anti-American thing to have done. ..."
"... Sedition is the right word. We are witnessing the overthrow of POTUS by bunch treacherous bastards. Short of a civil war, is there legal/political way to stop these guys? ..."
"... Sedition isn't any more correct than the foolish talk of treason. Those screaming the loudest about Trump's supposed treason are seeking to used the existing structures of government and the Constitution to oust a sitting president and those around him. They are not trying to overthrow or destroy the government. ..."
"... Their substance is nothing, less than nothing. For foreign governments to wish to find ways to influence an American Administration s completely normal. Do you not think our NATO allies have the same conversations as well as our lovely Israeli friends. What do you think ambassadors do for a living? They advise on how to affect hat? As or Kushner's commo proposal, it was a stupid idea but hardly treasonous. you have to remember that the Trump people were not yet the US government. pl ..."
"... worth noting. jfk opened a back channel to Khrushchev after he was elected and before he was sworn in as president ..."
"... If the Russians really wanted to troll us, members of their embassy staff could hand out cookies to protesters in DC. ..."
"... But the Trump transition was unique in its unwillingness to use the government's communications lines and briefing material for its dealings with many foreign governments, partly because of concern that Obama administration officials might be monitoring the calls.... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation.html?_r=0 ..."
"... So the Trump people figured out what any sentient being has known from the very beginning, that the crooked Obama team and their allies in the IC were sweeping up all their communications to derail their political agenda which involved normalizing relations with Russia. ..."
"... Intel has confirmed a Remote Elevation of Privilege bug (CVE-2017-5689) in its Management Technology, on 1 May 2017.[12] Every Intel platform with either Intel Standard Manageability, Active Management Technology, or Small Business Technology, from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017 has a remotely exploitable security hole in the IME (Intel Management Engine) ..."
"... Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope. Following the Washington Post's disclosure on December 9 that the CIA believed Russia had intervened in the election to help Trump, the agency overnight became the great darling of many Trump critics. ..."
"... Glennon thinks Trump may surprise those who "blithely assume that the security bureaucracy will fight him to the death". As he says "it has never faced the raw hostility of an all out frontal assault from the White House." Indeed his greater concern is that should Trump go all in to quell this rebellion, "splintered and demoralised factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyber attacks, covert action, immigration bands, and mass surveillance." From where things stand right now, that seems like a good problem to have. ..."
" (CNN) Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information
about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted
by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and
a congressional source.
One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on
whether the Russians had leverage over Trump's inner circle. The source said the intercepted communications
suggested to US intelligence that Russians believed "they had the ability to influence the administration
through the derogatory information."" CNN (Dana Bash reporting)
----------------
"... two former intelligence officials and a congressional source."
What do you think? Would their initials be JB, JC and AS? What do you think? Do you think these
"Russian government officials" were discussing such matters on unencrypted, open circuits? No? Well,
if these intercepts and decrypts were of classified, secret Russian communications traffic, then
the leaker spies have disclosed SCI COMINT. But I suppose they are above the law. " The source said
the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence."
That means that the US spies were above the working level in the US IC. I will say nothing of
the role played by CNN in this betrayal of the United States.
By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing
government secrets, but I am filled with a great contempt for them. Are the principal spies acting
alone? I would think not. The government has many seditionists within it.
That JC guy just made quite interesting remarks in an NBC interview. "If you put that in context
with everything else we knew the Jews were doing and just the historical practices of the Jews,
who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is
a typical Jewish technique." Isn't that some deeply fascist stuff to say?
b, JC claims "Russia is not our friend." Could he really be so naive as to believe that nations
have friends? One could argue more damage has been done to US security by some of our "friends"
than our "enemies"- for example, its unclear how NK has hurt US security to date.
That will teach me to read the comments before going to the poisoned source. You had me there.
I suppose as 'Russians' really means 'Commies' anyway, it's not really that bad. /s
these bozos need to focus on how they have been bought and paid for by israel and saudi arabia..
russia is like some fly on the side of an elephant.. no one is talking about the elephant for
good reason... they are a bunch of liars and sycophants either way..
Clearly you are a political partisan. And in your hatred of Trump quite willing to sell out the
US.
The only evidence of treason is by two former intelligence officials and a congressional source,
who have leaked the ability of the US to decrypt secure communication of the Russians. Maybe they'll
get the noose if such crimes are ever prosecuted.
If it is all made up, then what would you call propagating false information by high national
intelligence officials in collusion with national media to take down a legitimate POTUS?
It's far more likely that they're just making this stuff up. Are they ever going to be required
to repeat this stuff under oath or even produce evidence of their claims? I very much doubt it.
Col: The slander stems from the belief that the Establishment makes legitimate policy, and the
Elected President must ask their permission. To me, this attitude is a wholesale rejection
of our constitutional system.
Substantively, this (the entire 'Russian Affair, or, employing the mating call of the asshole,
RussiaGate, seems like mush, seasoned and spooned to the American Public with a whole lotta adjectives
(like the guy above, "treasonous" and such), and sold as steak.
First of all, Kushner supposedly "ASKED" to do this, not actually "DID" this. Would "ASKING"
to do this be just as treasonous an act as if he had "DONE" this? If so, that brings me to . .
. Second of all, the Overt Act which must be witnessed by 2 people at the same time . .
. must be in direct assistance to an overt enemy declared to be in a State of War against America.
Did this Overt Act, if indeed it was one, seek to render assistance to an Overt Enemy in a State
of War against America? No. Because Russia is not an Overt Enemy in any Declared State of War.
Now . . . is Russia a "covert enemy"? Or maybe just a "covert adversary"? Maybe so. In
which case, broadcasting to the world including most of all to Russia itself that we can decrypt
their most sensitive strongestly-encrypted communications destroys our ability to do that decrypting.
And THAT is a highly anti-American thing to have done.
Sedition is the right word. We are witnessing the overthrow of POTUS by bunch treacherous
bastards. Short of a civil war, is there legal/political way to stop these guys? Would it
help if Trump calls for a million man march in DC?
Sedition isn't any more correct than the foolish talk of treason. Those screaming the loudest
about Trump's supposed treason are seeking to used the existing structures of government and the
Constitution to oust a sitting president and those around him. They are not trying to overthrow
or destroy the government.
Trump certainly could call for a million man march, but he better be certain he could generate
crowds at least as big as the women's march. Anything less would backfire.
We may see something big happening on twitter soon. Trump's two twitter accounts have gained
over five million followers in the last three days. Most are empty bot accounts which have no
activity. Accounts are being added at a hundred bots an hour. Many people are reporting their
accounts are now following the Trump and related bot accounts without authorization. Some are
unfollowing and blocking Trump only to have their accounts reconnecting to the Trump accounts.
People are being advised to change their passwords and disable any twitter related apps. My guess
is that some kind of shit is about to hit the fan.
The Twitter bot anarchy on Trump's feed is all par for the course in this period of incredible
developments in software. The rapid iteration cycle is moving even faster than even experts can
comprehend.
Hillary right on cue is now claiming that a thousand Russian agents on Facebook and bots on
Twitter upended her "sure thing" campaign. Pathetic!
She raised over a billion dollars. Why didn't she hire 10,000 Indians and Chinese click fraudsters
and all those snowflake kids to swamp social media? IMO, this entitled mindset is exactly why
voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania rejected her for even Trump.
Political campaigns have always been a blood sport. As they say, all's fair in love and war.
I think we're pretty much in agreement here. All elections from this point on are going to
be full on info ops using every psychological and technological trick in the book. This is why
I think we should study what the Russians did in 2016 in detail. I'd like the electorate to be
as aware of all these info op/marketing techniques as possible. Then we should study what the
Trump and Clinton campaigns did and didn't do. What we'll find it the Clinton and the DNC ran
a coal powered campaign while Trump and the RNC ran a turbo-diesel campaign and the Russians ran
a nuclear campaign. It just happened that Trump, the RNC and the Russians were eventually working
towards the same goal - defeat Clinton. That doesn't necessarily mean there was any collusion
or witting cooperation between Trump and the Russians.
This certainly isn't the whole story. Clinton stood for staying the course, more of the same
with a strong possibility of a hot war with Russia thrown in as a bonus. Trump stood for trying
something else. Given the strikingly divided nature of the electorate, that kind of battle of
ideas is a 50-50 proposition at best. There was no sure thing.
"All elections from this point on are going to be full on info ops using every psychological
and technological trick in the book ."
Weren't political campaigns always attempts at persuasion and dissuasion? There's just more
tools available now and people are more connected and acquire information from a larger number
of sources.
It's not Trump's & the Russians fault that Hillary ran a "coal-powered campaign". She had all
the money and the same tools that at least Trump had. Bottom line is she didn't execute well and
consequently didn't bring home the bacon. No different than two teams playing in a championship
game, where the winner typically executes better.
Also, didn't the Brits, French, Israelis, Chinese, and Saudis get involved too? You can't blame
anyone from trying their darndest to not have the US arrow on their back. After all, many have
an existential interest, considering the track record of the US in mindlessly intervening in the
internal affairs of sovereign nations.
The real insidious aspect is the post-election info op by elements in our IC and it seems from
David Habbakuk's posts the British IC, as well as the MSM. This has some serious traitorous behavior
that if not nipped now will morph into something even more dangerous. IMO, when the immense power
of the national security apparatus gets subverted to overturn a legitimate democratic process,
we've crossed the threshold to totalitarianism.
Their substance is nothing, less than nothing. For foreign governments to wish to find
ways to influence an American Administration s completely normal. Do you not think our NATO allies
have the same conversations as well as our lovely Israeli friends. What do you think ambassadors
do for a living? They advise on how to affect hat? As or Kushner's commo proposal, it was a stupid
idea but hardly treasonous. you have to remember that the Trump people were not yet the US government.
pl
Ambassador Kislyak is certainly doing his job. My question wasn't so much about the Russians
but rather about the Americans. Is the sum total of the leaks -- if true -- of any concern to
you?
"By long standing legal precedent journalistic projects are immune from prosecution for disclosing
government secrets"
I don't especially want the press to have to censor what they publish. As long as it is not
something which will obviously place people in jeopardy, they should publish. It should be the
job of those in charge in the government to keep stuff from leaking to begin with.
Excommunicate me if you must, but Kushner asking to use encrypted communications from
the Russian embassy is the very definition of treason."
Treason??? Even the lowly NY Times disagrees with your extremist analysis. Here's an excerpt
from today's paper:
"responding to questions from The Times about the meetings with Mr. Kislyak and Mr. Gorkov,
Ms. Hicks said the meetings were part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to improve relations between
the United States and Russia, and to identify areas of possible cooperation....
So the Trump people figured out what any sentient being has known from the very beginning,
that the crooked Obama team and their allies in the IC were sweeping up all their communications
to derail their political agenda which involved normalizing relations with Russia.
Speaking of the treasonous shows, did you know that Morning Joe Scarborough and Mika are now
engaged? Also, Mika's daddy Zbigniew Brzezinski passed away 4 days ago.
I don't see any evidence that Trump's hold on the Presidency is in any real or imminent danger.
The Russia scandal newsfeed is slowing him down a bit, which may not be a bad thing given his
reputation for impetuous decision making, lose talk, arrogance when it comes to the details and
a tendency to keep it in the family, or at least among loyalists. If the Dems think the Russia
thing is going to win them control of the House, they need to think again, it seems to me.
Coronel Lang, there are some things I really don't understand. Perhaps you could explain:
Could it really be a big secret that the IC is able to decrypt Russian communications? I would
imagine there is a constant tug of war here: sometimes the US IC is able to do decode and sometimes
not, as the systems on both sides are upgraded and changed periodically.
What are the goals of those in the IC who are supposed to be sabotaging Trump? What exactly
is it that they are trying to accomplish or prevent?
What precisely are the two side of the controversy over what is the right stance toward Russia
and for what reasons? The answer to this could include Syria as well as the Ukraine and NATO.
What was Trump trying to achieve by visiting Saudi Arabia in the way he did and what is to
be gained and by whom in making Iran the great enemy? Did he achieve it?
The Eurasia Review has an OpEd by "Mina" with the headline: "Washington Post Exposed NSA's
Ability to Intercept Chatter from Russian Embassy." It can be googled. Even has a photo of Jared.
Mina refers to and relies on Col. Lang as an authority and notes his shock and outrage at this
publishing of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Mina states, among other things: "In
other words, for the sake of causing some minor embarrassment to the President, the Washington
Post struck a major blow against US intelligence."
I had watched an analogous phenomenon in post-Revolutionary Iran; the competing political cliques
and bands often leaking this or that information in order to harm their political opponents; always
being oblivious to the wider damage to the national interests.
Evidently, that sort of extreme parochialism is not confined to Thrid World countries.
Colonel,
Recently you mentioned how tired you are of the 'mendacious BS'. Be assured you are not alone
with your fatigue. I am not only tired of it but also deeply shocked, to find myself 50 years
later in my old age confronted again with such mendacious BS. In my youth under Soviet domination
it was totally impossible to imagine that one day the 'russki' FM would make jokes about how the
roles have reversed and the Pravda and Isviestia ('no truth' and 'no news') would have their imitators
or heirs in USA. So, Colonel, do not get tired and have a beautiful, restful Birthday! ( and a
glass of Champagne will do good ).
I vividly imagine Russian analysts now sifting through all Dec. 2016 communications for that remark:
able to influence the Trump administration through publication of (financial) derogatory information.
Not an easy task, but with the keyword 'financial information' they afterwards will know pretty
clearly which frequency and encryption method is no longer good enough.
Why would there be legal protection for the journalists for bloating out this capability, however
indirectly, in the absence of a clear public requirement? If the publisher feels there was one
they could easily explain it to a court, II assume. Is there not a code of conduct or legal responsibility
of each publisher in the United States? And if not wouldn't it be possible to use a copyright
infringement law?
It is interesting. I saw a clip from CNN yesterday (can't find it now so probably erased from
the internet) where they were trying to push a panel of (not-so) "average" Americans to agree
with the premise of Russian tampering. To their credit these particular Americans questioned the
entire premise and instead turned the tables on the American government questioning credibility
of unnamed sources etc. as well as past misdeeds. I was pleasantly surprised at the intelligent
answers given and the consternation of the interviewer. But, what is shocking to me were the written
responses on the posting many of which were in the grain of "these Americans were treasonous and
should be shot". Probably many of the posts were bots but if this is true then the liberals are
in deep trouble and in complete denial about what has been happening in the US and especially
US foreign policy.
What will be interesting is what the response is going to be when the illegal US base in Syria
is attacked by the Syrian Army, perhaps today. This is a put up or shut up moment in history.
The same thing is going to happen in North Korea soon. I also noticed a interesting lack of concern
for Israel test firing an ICBM (a rogue nation with illegal nuclear weapons), yet we said nothing
about it. Korea on the other hand, is the opposite, and we are coming close to war over the same
thing.
Regarding the leaks, I believe it is imperative for Trump to find them fast and perhaps maybe
have a few shot as these are the real treasonous Americans. I also think he needs to go after
Podesta, Soros, McCain et. al. in earnest and remove them from the board. He needs to get ahead
of this and start removing obstacles. Playing nice isn't working.
As I said to an astonished 'liberal' friend last week, forgoing fruitless confrontation with Russia
is a Policy, not a Crime.
A clearly and openly stated policy enunciated during the campaign in prime-time, on many a
debate stage. The studied Clinton rebuttal? "You are Putin's puppet!" This is still the only sound
we hear from the 'resistance'. No evidence.
Now, six months on, to remind a fellow citizen of the results of the election is become nearly
pointless. There is a sputtering madness gripping these deeply misguided partisan defenders of
the foreign policy status quo that has become actually dangerous. I thought Trump should have
made a number of publicly staged arrests, complete with a Marine detachment and cameras rolling,
by now. But instead, Clapper and Brennan are themselves destroying the reputations of the institutions
they supposedly cherish, and their compliant media megaphone, with their own ragged flailings.
There will be no impeachment. Check the latest poll. Trump would win more handily today than
after this Orwellian blitz has run on for over half a year.
Madness! Of course, I aggressively snapped off the tube when Clapper appeared on PBS last night,
so maybe I am becoming infected, too...
Although all the parasites in Washington love to give lip service to things like "the constitution"
and "our freedom" their actions since 9/11, and even long before, are proof that this is merely
gruel for the serfs. Most of those who started the treason and sedition are long dead or are on
deaths door anyway. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
It is the lower echelons of the parasites deriving their livelihoods off of the state who cling
to some kind of legitimacy from government in Washington. Just look at the way the Democrat statists
reject and criticism of Hilary with or without proof.
Those of us who have personally experienced the vengefulness and tyranny of the federal government
have long given up hope of anything good coming out of that cesspool on the Potomac. We are merely
watching the buzzards fighting over the remains of the carcass. There is no such thing as good
buzzards or bad buzzards, so we expect nothing from them.
No doubt there is unprecedented leaking going on and the question is: Why? It appears that many
in the government are appalled at decisions and maybe even more at how decisions are made. Then
there is the problem with having a president who is increasingly being disrespected, which started
while he was a candidate. You have to consider that many of his problems are self-inflicted.
Having a beleaguered and weaker presidency is not a good thing. It is starting to resemble
the late 60's and early 70's, which is the last time we had a seriously divided nation, with many
lasting results and not all of them positive.
It seems that we are inching towards some kind of constitutional crisis and that is not a good
thing either.
"No doubt there is unprecedented leaking going on and the question is: Why?"
Public revelation that those previously in charge were giving aid and comfort to the enemy
(Manpads to Al Qadea. etc. etc.) of the United States for the benefit of another foreign entity.
So that entity is having its agents pull out the stops to keep the truth in a dark musty corner.
Aside frm the stupidity of wanting to run a back channel in a Russian diplomatic facility,
no IMO the "revelations" amount to nothing. The release of the COMINT material to the media is
a crime that should be punished with imprisonment. pl
"many in the government" IMO the US spies are either formers like JB, and JC or are politically
appointed Obama holdovers. Career government people have it in their DNA NOT to destroy American
intelligence capabilities by telling intelligence targets that we can read their traffic. pl
"Could it really be a big secret that the IC is able to decrypt Russian communications?" Could
it really have been a big secret that the British solved the Enigma cypher system? Yes, it was.
Could it really have been a big secret that US Navy and US Army SIGINT people solved the Japanese
diplomatic and naval cypher systems? Yes, it was. The Germans and the Japanese understood that
it was theoretically possible for their systems to be solved but they did not believe that it
could actually be done. As a result the German U Boat fleet was decimated through their position
reporting and the Japanese lost four fleet carriers at Midway. If the Germans and Japanese had
understood that their communications were compromised these benefits to the Allies would not have
occurred. Traffic analysis (look it up)played a major role as well as cryptanalysis. The Russians
now KNOW that a umber of their commo systems are compromised and they will go all out to replace
these capabilities with others that we will work for years to penetrate. pl
Let' be real careful bandying about words like "treason". The Founders, themselves guilty of
treason (in the Crown's eyes), specifically defined what treason is. Treason is the only crime
specified in the Constitution"
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering
to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless
on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
There's lots of other crimes committed by these miscreants and hanging is too good for them.
Treason isn't one of them.
By contrast to the conversations between Kushner and Kislyak, it seems to me possible that
the offence here may simply be fabrication of non-existent conversations.
Having stated that 'the FBI would not comment on whether any of the claims discussed in the
intercepts have been verified', the CNN report continues:
'But US counterintelligence investigators were already looking into the Russian claims during
the summer of 2016, before the public became aware of similar claims in a dossier created for
political opponents of Trump by a former British spy. The former spy, Christopher Steele, shared
some of those findings with the FBI during the summer of 2016.
'CNN has not been able to verify the allegations about the derogatory information in the dossier,
but current and former US officials say some of the Russia-to-Russia conversations in the dossier
have been corroborated.'
A number of points.
1. There is ample evidence that in his time as a 'former British spy' Steele pedalled the most
outrageous disinformation against leaders MI6 wanted to target. Also, it is material that he is
patently not very competent at 'information operations' – the claims he and his associates feed
to the media keep changing.
This is not noticed only because, for a variety of reasons, contemporary journalists are happy
to act as stenographers for the spooks (however corrupt and incompetent these demonstrably are.)
This applies equally, whether the journalists come from the 'right' or the 'left'.
When the story of Steele's involvement with the BuzzFeed dossier first broke in January, the
– traditionally right-wing – 'Telegraph' reported that he had been case officer for the late Alexander
Litvinenko. However, when he emerged out of hiding in March, the – traditionally left-wing – 'Guardian'
reported that:
'Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said
friends. The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident
who was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea, probably on Putin's orders.
'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning,
quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not
his case officer, friends said.'
2. If Steele and his associates got leery about drawing attention to his involvement with Litvinenko,
they had good reason.
According to the 'Vanity Fair' report linked to in the CNN story, Steele was head of the MI6
Russia Desk from 2004 to 2009. We know that Litvinenko became an MI6 agent prior to 2004, Steele
would have had overall charge of his activities when he was disseminating disinformation designed
to show, among other things, that the notorious Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich, while acting
as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had been attempted to secure a 'mini
nuclear bomb' for Al Qaeda.
Among many other accusations his agent was disseminating was the claim that Romano Prodi was
a KGB/FSB agent. (Time was when this might have worried the 'Guardian' – not now.)
I produced evidence on the 'mini nuclear bomb' claim – only a fragment of a mass of material
I brought to the attention of Sir Robert Owen, and most of which he suppressed in his report –
in comments Colonel Lang posted on SST after that report was published.
3. According to the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt, presented in evidence to Owen, and taken at face value by him, Steele's ignorance of his
agent's activities was quite phenomenal.
What we are asked to believe is that, immediately following his drinking tea with the dastardly
Kremlin agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun on 1 November, Litvinenko suspected they had tried
to poison him. What we are also asked to believe is that MI6 knew nothing of this until Litvinenko
told Hyatt to 'phone his 'handler', 'Martin' on 20 November.
From the account by Luke Harding of the 'Guardian':
'The interview abruptly stops. It's 5.16pm. Hyatt dials the long telephone number, reaches
"Martin", and tells him that Litvinenko is gravely ill in hospital, the victim of an apparent
poisoning by two mysterious Russians.
'It appears to be the first time that MI6 – an organisation famed for its professionalism –
learns of Litvinenko's plight.'
4. So Litvinenko was screaming out that Putin had tried to kill him, and Steele didn't know
anything about it? If you believe that, you will believe anything.
The interviews are, transparently, forged, and anyone who thinks that MI6 deserves to be 'famed
for its professionalism' is either simply ignorant, or a fool or a knave. (With Harding, it's
probably all three together.)
What was actually happening was that Steele and his associates were first trying to keep the
whole story of the poisoning under wraps, and then going round in circles trying to find a reasonably
convincing means of obscuring the truth. (So too were those in the know in Russian intelligence.)
For the way in which Steele and his minions could not get their accounts of the vehicle(s)
by which Litvinenko travelled into London on the day he was supposedly murdered straight, and
many other contradictions, see the SST post to which I have linked.
5. What then happens if you look at the BuzzFeed dossier against this background?
What we know is that the latest date on the materials from the DNC which WikiLeaks started
publishing on 22 July 2016 is 25 May 2016. We also know that James Comey never got the FBI to
look at the DNC servers. Instead he relied upon what is – frankly – a heap of old garbage supplied
by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike', starting I think on 15 June.
How can anyone defend this privatisation of a key investigative task? It should be quite sufficient
grounds for sacking Comey.
6. On 20 June 2016, if the dossier is to be believed, Christopher Steele was ready with the
first installment of his heap of garbage. Unfortunately, it seems that he and Alperovitch did
not coordinate their stories – as their accounts of the hacking are totally contradictory.
7. Moreover, the BuzzFeed dossier has now produced three separate lawsuits. The most recent,
filed on 26 May, is by Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan of 'Alfa Group'. As the summons
notes, the name is spelt incorrectly in the dossier as 'Alpha Group'.
But hell, you don't really expect the head of MI6's Russia Desk to be familiar with the names
of one of the most prominent Russian business empires, do you? (If they have an 'America desk',
its head probably writes that Bill Gates founded 'Mikrosoft'.)
8. Previously, actions were brought by the internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev – again misspelled,
as Gubarov – and his company XBT Holdings against BuzzFeed in Florida and Steele in London. To
anyone familiar with the history of Litvinenko's claims, what the BuzzFeed dossier claims about
Gubarev looks like vintage Steele:
'[redacted] reported that over the period March-September 2016 a company called XBT/Webzilla
and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal
data and conduct "altering operations" against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked
to one Alexei GUBAROV [sic] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under
duress by the FSB, Seva KAPSUGOVICH, were significant players in this operation. In Prague, COHEN
agreed contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operations, but in particular what
was to be done in the event that Hillary CLINTON won the presidency. It was important in this
event that all cash payments owed were made quickly and discreetly and that cyber and that cyber
and other operators were stood down / able to go effectively to ground to cover their traces.'
9. On 27 March, lawyers for Gubarev filed a response to BuzzFeed's motion to dismiss, entitled
'Six Ways Buzzfeed Has Misled the Court (Number Two Will Amaze You) and a Picture of a Kitten.'
It is entertaining. In the event, the judge ruled in Gubarev's favour.
A point of interest in Steele's accounts of his relation with the American company Fusion is
summarised in the 'Guardian' account:
'The document said that he passed the memos to Fusion on the understanding that Fusion would
not disclose the material to any third parties without the approval of Steele and Orbis. They
did agree to Fusion providing a copy to Senator John McCain after the veteran Republican had been
told about the existence of Steele's research by Sir Andrew Wood, a former UK ambassador to Moscow
and an Orbis associate, at a conference in Canada on 8 November.'
The suggestion that Wood had been involved with Steele's company Orbis for a long time tends
to strengthen the impression that its supposedly independent status acted as cover for projects
championed by influential circles in the British 'sistema' – and that these were intimately involved
in the campaign against Trump.
11. On the role of disingenuous claims about 'SIGINT' in 'information operations', it may be
worth looking back at the all-out propaganda offensive that heralded the opening of Owen's travesty
of an inquiry. A report in 'The American Interest' was headlined: 'NSA Proves Russia Behind Litvinenko's
Murder.'
At a time when claims made by Steele may be subjected to rather more rigorous scrutiny in the
courts than that provided by Owen and his team, and where a collapse in his credibility threatens
to have large knock-on effects, it would not be surprising is, as it were, people in the NSA were
once again prepared to be cooperative in maintaining his fictions.
"We also know that James Comey never got the FBI to look at the DNC servers. Instead he relied
upon what is – frankly – a heap of old garbage supplied by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike',
starting I think on 15 June. How can anyone defend this privatisation of a key investigative task?"
I admire your thoroughness and detailed analyses, often excruciatingly detailed, but I take
serious issue with this particular statement. I'm afraid you and many others are not at all familiar
with how the world of cyber analysis works. Most of the attacks that require analysis and mitigation
occur on IT systems belonging to non-governmental entities. These private entities are usually
loathe to even admit that they have been hacked. They rely on other private entities like CrowdStrike,
Mandiant and McAfee to mitigate these attacks and keep that information out of the press and out
of the hands of government. The NDAs covering these relationships are draconian. This has always
been the case. Given this environment , IT security companies like CrowdStrike, Mandiant and McAfee
have a wider and more in-depth knowledge of worldwide cyber threats than even our NSA.
The FBI and NSA are well aware of this reality and often rely on these private IT security
companies for their extended expertise. In 2011 the NSA turned to McAfee for assistance in dealing
with a massive intrusion into the networks of several major defense contractors and the compromise
of a security technology that was vital to systems in the DOD, IC and the rest of the government.
Dmitri Alperovitch was a vital part of that McAfee team. That private security team was instrumental
in mitigating the threat and identifying a nation-state actor as the source of that threat. This
happens time after time, but we will seldom hear of it. And when we do, we never get the full
story or all the evidence. This community is unusually adept in the art of STFU. That and the
NDAs are truly draconian.
The FBI has several programs designed to entice private companies to share information about
cyber intrusions with the government. I am familiar with one that has a good track record of success.
The National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance (NCFTA) is a non-profit corporation founded in
2002 in Pittsburgh, PA. It is the brain child of a particularly enlightened FBI Special Agent.
He explained the delicate relationships he developed with private companies based on mutual trust.
There was never any Fed flashing of badges and demands for cooperation. That approach is always
counterproductive. But this is a small effort given the size of the FBI and the magnitude of the
cyber intrusion problem.
This is the world I worked in for a decade. And this is why I find your question of "how anyone
defend this privatisation of a key investigative task?" to be so off the mark.
I will apologise – up to a point – for the fact that my analyses are often 'excruciatingly
detailed.'
There is however one good reason for this, as well as some bad ones.
Over the years, it has become clear to me that, in many 'information operations', it is convenient
for people in the United States to have key parts run out of Britain. So it becomes important
to try to provide to Americans the detailed information which might enable them to expose the
pernicious effect 'loops of lies' running between Washington and London may have on the politics
of both countries.
As to 'CrowdStrike'. A rather important point is that this was not a private contractor chosen
by the FBI – but one brought in by the DNC. As a central question was whether what was at issue
was a leak or a hack, and if it was the former that organisation had every reason to want to cover
it up, even leaving out all other matters, 'CrowdStrike' should not have been accepted as objective
by the FBI.
Then, however, look at the sequence – which brings up the question of British involvement.
When he pointed to 'Fancy Bear' and 'Cozy Bear' as having been responsible for hacking the
DNC on 16 June 2016, Alperovitch explained that 'their tradecraft is superb, operational security
second to none etc etc.' He went on at length about how virtuoso they were supposed to be – confronted
by Moriarty-figures like this, only sleuths with Sherlock Holmes-like powers like himself could
expect to cope.
It was on the following day that a site called 'Ars Tecnica' published the revelations which
appeared to indicate that, in fact, the hackers had clumsily left indications pointing unambiguously
to a Russian origin – most notably, the Christian name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky.
These had, apparently, been 'teased out of the documents and noted on Twitter by an independent
security researcher who goes by the handle PwnAllTheThings.' This, it turned out, was a certain
Mark Tait.
On 28 July, Tait produced a post on the 'Lawfare' site, entitled 'On the Need for Official
Attribution of Russia's DNC Hack.'
'Matt Tait is the CEO and founder of Capital Alpha Security, a UK based security consultancy
which focuses on research into software vulnerabilities, exploit mitigations and applied cryptography.
Prior to founding Capital Alpha Security, Tait worked for Google Project Zero, was a principal
security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist
for GCHQ.'
Note that: 'worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'
The story Tait tells reads to me, as classic 'information operations' – how initially he did
not believe the 'CrowdStrike' revelations, and then was converted after the document dump by 'Guccifer
2.0' – and the damning evidence of the 'Felix Edmundovich'.
Of this he writes:
'It's an operational security failure by a group whose malware was riddled with other basic
operational security failures. While amusing at first, the hackers' attempts to address it in
future leaks was so overt and ham-fisted that it just served to highlight the initial error.'
Perhaps Tait and Alperovitch should get together and try and get their story straight. What
are the FSB and in particular GRU hackers supposed to be – criminal masterminds, or incompetent
petty thieves who even Inspector Lestrade could expose in twenty-minutes?
And then Tait also mentions Thomas Rid, of King's College.
In the 'information operations' designed to allow the American, and British, governments, to
hand Syria over to the jihadists, and empower people wearing lightly modified versions of the
'Black Sun' and 'Wolfsangel' symbols in Ukraine, Eliot Higgins, who first ran the 'Brown Moses
Blog', and now runs 'Bellingcat', has played a crucial role.
As you will have seen, Professor Theodore Postol of MIT is back trying to scotch the latest
'Bellingcat' lies.
If you do a few quick Google searches, you will find that Higgins is a 'Nonresident Senior
Fellow, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Future Europe Initiative' at the Atlantic Council . You
will also find that Dmitri Alperovitch is 'Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative'
at the Atlantic Council.
You will also find that Higgins is 'Visiting Research Associate' at the 'Centre for Science
and Security Studies' at King's College, London. If you google Thomas Rid, you will find that
he is 'Professor of Security Studies' in the 'Department of War Studies' at the same institution.
Among the sources of funding which Higgins has acknowledged is Google – for whom, apparently,
Mark Tait worked, after leaving GCHQ.
And then, on top of all this, we have the appearance of Christopher Steele in a key role in
the 'information operations' intended to establish that the WikiLeaks material originated from
Russian hacking, rather than an internal leak.
As I have been 'excrucriatingly detailed' enough for one post, I will not go into my encounters
with Sir Lawrence Freedman, who was instrumental in shaping the War Studies Department at King's,
and also in persuading that dolt Tony Blair that it was a good idea to invade Iraq – and was then
appointed to the Chilcot Inquiry team. Suffice it to say that I know that he is simply a different
version of idiot.
Nor will I revisit what I have already said about Steele.
But really, if citizens of the United States are prepared to see someone corrupt former employees
of British intelligence like Tait and Steele play a major role in the attempted reversal of the
results of a Presidential election, then on your own heads be it.
What did Franklin say: 'A republic, if you can keep it.'
I think there is no other way than investigating things in great details - into the weeds, so
to speak - in this case as many others.
One used to be able to rely upon the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles
Times, the Des Moines Register, the Boston Globe, and the Chicago Tribune for that; also, all
of that has disappeared over the last 20 years or so.
NPR was very good, almost as good as the old BBC, before Reagan gutted it and it never recovered.
Byzantine bureaucracy had a lot of influence on policy.
No need for any apologies. It was a tongue-in-cheek observation, not a complaint. As far as
Alperovitch and CrowdStrike goes, I think we can all benefit from more excruciating details than
you have provided. Dimitri is one of those Russians who learned how to code on a blackboard rather
than on a keyboard. I've had up close and personal relationships with a number of these types.
The best of the Russian hackers came from this group. These old school hackers do recognize the
virtuosity in a piece of code and can wax poetic about it. It's just their nature. On the other
hand, there are very few hackers of this caliber still in the hacking business today. Most are
now one step away from script kiddies. That is the bulk of the patriotic Russian hackers who Putin
referred to today as possibly involved in the election hacking. I have personally witnessed this
methodology of guiding an army of non-governmental patriotic hackers to achieve governmental objectives
on several occasions.
The FBI called on Dimitri to help guide one of their premier long term undercover cyber operations.
In 2005 he worked with SA Keith Mularski establishing the very successful Dark Net operation.
Keith, who I know well, thinks very highly of Dimitri. Throughout his career he specialized in
threat intelligence. He had several years of experience tracking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear intrusions
before he began the DNC investigation. In all situations I know where attribution is made, a multi-year
investigation is part of the process. Researchers like Jeff Carr are right to point out that attribution
from a single intrusion is damned near impossible. I also doubt CrowdStrike hung their claim of
attribution on the Dzerzhinsky thing. These are the types of things Dimitri coached Keith to avoid
in the Dark Net operation. This is why the NSA called on him and McAfee to assist in some of their
investigations.
You are right in pointing out that it was the DNC who chose CrowdStrike rather than the FBI.
However, this is how these investigations always work. The client decides who does the investigation
and when that investigation is released to the FBI (if at all). The head of the CrowdStrike team
that did the on site investigation at the DNC was Shawn Henry, the former head of the FBI Cyber
Division. I'm fairly certain the FBI was quite satisfied with who did the investigation.
Colonel I have refrained from any posting anywhere for any reason for months, but since the discussion
seems to turn to decryption so often I thought you might be interested in knowing about network
management systems built into Intel and AMD based machines for years,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology
Hardware-based management does not depend on the presence of an OS or locally installed management
agent. Hardware-based management has been available on Intel/AMD based computers in the past,
but it has largely been limited to auto-configuration using DHCP or BOOTP for dynamic IP address
allocation and diskless workstations, as well as wake-on-LAN (WOL) for remotely powering on
systems.[6] AMT is not intended to be used by itself; it is intended to be used with a software
management application.[1] It gives a management application (and thus, the system administrator
who uses it) access to the PC down the wire, in order to remotely do tasks that are difficult
or sometimes impossible when working on a PC that does not have remote functionalities built
into it.[1][3][7]
... Intel has confirmed a Remote Elevation of Privilege bug (CVE-2017-5689) in its Management Technology,
on 1 May 2017.[12] Every Intel platform with either Intel Standard Manageability, Active Management
Technology, or Small Business Technology, from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017 has a remotely
exploitable security hole in the IME (Intel Management Engine).[13][14]
I think our second O in OODA is getting fuzzed if we don't consider some of the observations found
in "Powershift" by Toffler as well.
The point being is that many Intel and AMD based computers can and have been owned by various
governments and groups for years, and at this level have access to any information on these machines
before the encryption software is launched to encrypt any communications.
If this known software management tool is already on board, then extrapolation Toffler's chipping
warning to unannounced or unauthorized by various actors, one begins to see where various nation
states have gone back to typewriters for highly sensitive information, or are building their own
chip foundries, and writing their own operating systems and TCP/IP protocols, and since these
things are known knowns, one would not be too far fetched in assuming the nation state level players
are communicating over something entirely different than you and I are using. How that impacts
the current news cycle, and your interpretation of those events, I leave to your good judgment.
I would urge all of my fellow Americans, especially those with a megaphone, to also take care
that we are not the subject of the idiom divide and conquer instead of its' master. To that end
I think the concept of information overload induced by the internet may in fact be part of the
increasing polarization and information bubbles we see forming with liberals and conservatives.
This too fuzzes the second O in OODA and warps the D and thus the A, IMHO.
This serial leaking is the most visible sign of a deeper battle between the foreign policy "establishment"
and Trump. While much discussed here, the causes and potential consequences of this crucially
important showdown are rarely touched on in the mainstream media; they're far too caught up in
the hue and cry of the chase.
"Security Breach - Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J Glennon's article
in the latest Harper's, is an exception:
"Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best
hope. Following the Washington Post's disclosure on December 9 that the CIA believed Russia had
intervened in the election to help Trump, the agency overnight became the great darling of many
Trump critics. They urged it to share its secrets with the Electoral College with the goal of
preventing the president-elect from taking office. Trump was "being really dumb" by feuding with
the CIA, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "You take on the intelligence community,
they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." Francis Fukuyama hoped that "America's
enormous bureaucracy" would restrain Trump. Bill Kristol proclaimed he would "prefer the deep
state to the Trump state." And The New Yorker assured readers that the intelligence community's
managers were likely to challenge Trump before Congress, which was as it should be: "This is just
the sort of thing we want to see happening" as part of "the fabled 'checks and balances' in the
U.S. system."
This sudden embrace of the security agencies as the republic's last line of defence is of course
constitutional nonsense as well as being remarkably shortsighted, potentially suicidally so. Glennon
again:
"But consider the price of victory if the security directorate were somehow to establish itself
as a check on those presidential policies - or officials - that it happened to dislike. To formally
charge the bureaucracy with providing a check on the president, Congress, or the courts would
represent an entirely new form of government, a system in which institutionalized bureaucratic
autocracy displaces democratic accountability."
Glennon thinks Trump may surprise those who "blithely assume that the security bureaucracy
will fight him to the death". As he says "it has never faced the raw hostility of an all out frontal
assault from the White House." Indeed his greater concern is that should Trump go all in to quell
this rebellion, "splintered and demoralised factions within the bureaucracy could actually support
- not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyber attacks,
covert action, immigration bands, and mass surveillance." From where things stand right now, that
seems like a good problem to have.
In any event, it's mildly encouraging to see some discussion of the broader principles. I still
think Trump has much to gain from putting these matters firmly within this larger framework and
hammering it hard at every level.
"This sudden embrace of the security agencies as the republic's last line of defence is of course
constitutional nonsense as well as being remarkably shortsighted, potentially suicidally so."
They are using this not for defence of the republic, but for sparing these usurping subversives
from just punishment.
Let me see if I have got this straight. It sounds like an enigma variation. Some damned traitors
in Washington have just told the Russians that their top secret communications have been cracked.
Its a bit like the BBC telling the Germans that their enigma machine/ code has been cracked. As
a result, the Russians/ Germans are now going all out to change their encryption codes/ procedures.
Is this what you are saying or am I overstating/ dramatizing the matter?
You have it right. I would add that today's electronic cipher gear is much more sophisticated
than in the era of Enigma and therefore the loss is so much greater. pl
"... There is a special term for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own existence: "national security parasites". Their existence does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or China because they want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative positions and streams of income. That requires certain level of hostilities to be maintained. In other words the USA needs a permanent enemy to justify military expenses and there is a network network of consultants, think-tanks and neocon operatives (including democratic) tasked with this goal. An integral part of MIC -- its propaganda arm, is you wish. ..."
"a huge military establishment, the Pentagon needs to
regularly justify its existence."
There is a special term
for those folk who are mainly involved in justified their own
existence: "national security parasites". Their existence
does increase chances of accidental war with Russia or China
because they want to defend not the USA, but their lucrative
positions and streams of income. That requires certain level
of hostilities to be maintained. In other words the USA needs
a permanent enemy to justify military expenses and there is a
network network of consultants, think-tanks and neocon
operatives (including democratic) tasked with this goal. An
integral part of MIC -- its propaganda arm, is you wish.
Some ways of justification, especially recently used by
democratic operatives to attack Trump, look suspiciously
close to treason to some observers.
OK, let's assume that Russians are the US enemies. If so,
then the recent leaks about Russian diplomatic communications
interception sound like betrayal of Bretchley Park efforts to
decode enigma during WWII.
In other words, some damned traitors in Washington have
just told the enemy that their top secret communications have
been cracked. Its a bit like the BBC broadcasting during WWII
that German enigma machine/ code has been cracked.
If true, huge advantage, considerable amount of money and
efforts of NSA (as well taxpayers money) just disappeared in
thin air.
And today's electronic cipher gear is much more
sophisticated than in the era of Enigma, and, therefore, the
loss is so much greater.
"seasoned military commanders" are like the Nazis who said US
lost Vietnam because they were not patient. These "seasoned
military commanders" seek only not to lose!
While why
should anyone "follow US leadership with these type of
"seasoned military commanders"?
Iran and Pakistan without US meddling will stabilize the
place enough to link to OBOR.
The US is trying to prove you can kill enough of them to
solve their problems, for them!
America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S.
government and media, endanger the planet by
concoctingstrategies inside their heads that
ignorereal-world consequences.
Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient
hatreds and spread chaos across the globe.
Cameron clamped down on the British newspapers after the Edward Snowden global surveillance leaks
were published in 2014. He specifically threatened the take over of the UK Guardian where a number
of the foreign reporters, such as Glenn Greenwald and Nafeez Ahmed, no longer work.
We won't see stuff like the UK special forces embedded with the Libyan jihadist militias.
I'm convinced the newswires came out with the reporting on the CIA operation in Benghazi before
the authorities were distracted by the even to quash the articles.
I voted for Trump but have been very disappointed in him so far. He has
done virtually nothing on immigration aside from a failed, meaningless 3
months ban on certain muslim countries. He has done nothing to end the
abuse of H1b or OPT, allowing another 85,000 applications to go through
this past April. He could've easily scrapped the Obama EO on OPT which
extended the optional practical training for foreign grads(of any major)
to nearly 3 years, a stupid program that actually gives US employers tax
incentives to hire foreign grads ahead of our own grads. Instead of
cancelling the fraud ridden EB-5 program, he gave it another extension,
now we find out Jared Kushner's family real estate firm is actually
actively selling that visa to more corrupt Chinese. Breitbart reported
that border agents are saying Trump is basically continuing with the
Obama admin's catch and release program at the borders. And his first
budget does not even include the Wall. He extended amnesty to DACA
without even using it as a bargaining chip for the wall!
His foreign policy is even worse. He bombed Syria without any real
evidence on the gas attack, and is cozying up to Saudi Arabia, the
world's biggest sponsor of Islamic terror, and Israel to make unnecessary
enemies of Russia, Assad and Iran. Selling over $100m of our most
sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia was the stupidest move ever. His
daughter's "Women Entrepreneur Fund" is becoming the new pay-to-play
scheme in DC, replacing the Clinton Foundation. Taking $40m donation from
the Arabs, a country that doesn't even allow women to drive, is a joke.
The Healthcare "fix" actually made things worse by removing the two
best provisions of ObamaCare that was essential in keeping prices low –
the individual mandate and the Cadillac tax. Without the individual
mandate, we'll have to let people die on the streets. We need to decouple
health insurance from employment and the Cadillac Tax at least is one
step towards that direction.
Bringing in Jared and Ivanka to the WH was a complete mistake. Nobody
elected those two NY liberals, along with all the wall street liberals
they brought in to dominate Trump's cabinet. This article is spot on, if
Trump wants his support back, he needs to send Jared and Ivanka packing,
and get his Nationalist agenda back on board ASAP.
Any establishment-anointed political candidate wants to say they are under attack by
the Russians because it gives them credibility, former MI5 intelligence officer Annie
Machon told RT. Political analyst Adam Garrie joins the discussion.
Guillaume Poupard, the head of the National Cybersecurity Agency of France (ANSSI),
said on Thursday there's no trace of a Russian hacking group being behind the attack on
Emmanuel Macron's presidential election campaign.
According to him, the hack was "so generic and simple that it could have been
practically anyone."
RT: Where does this statement by France's cybersecurity chief leave the claims of
Macron's team on Russian hacking?
Annie Machon: It leaves rather a lot of egg on their faces. It appears that this
attack was of such of low technical level it could have been done by a script kiddie
from their mom's basement. So rather than this hysteria about: 'The Russians must have
done it, the Russians must have done it,' which reminds me to a certain extent of the
Monty Python script that 'you must always expect a Spanish Inquisition.' It is beyond
parody. We have a situation now where he was trying to make political hay. It seems to
me that any establishment-anointed political candidate now wants to immediately say they
are under attack by the Russians because it gives them credibility. It is just crazy.
Now, the one thing we do know from this is that the one country that actually has
hacked the French election was the USA, and that was back in the presidential election
of 2012 where they were not only intercepting the electronic communications, they were
actually running human agents in the political parties. We know this because of
disclosures through the Vault 7 cache that WikiLeaks put out a month or two ago. For
everyone to go around blaming the Russians, when in fact the Americans have been doing
this for years, is rather rich?
RT: Why were members of Macron's team so sure about Russia's involvement? Do they
know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?
AM: Obviously not. I think there were just jumping on the bandwagon because it was
the sort of cool thing to do. After the fake buildup of the 'Russians hacked the
American elections,' which started by the way with a leak from the DNC [Democratic
National Committee] that was given to WikiLeaks, and somehow it moved into 'Russians
hacked the American election.'
Suddenly it has become established fact in the mainstream media in the West that the
Russians are going to hack every Western democratic election. That is patently not the
case in France, and it is also patently not the case in Germany, where there has also
been a similar panic about Russia trying to hack the forthcoming chancellor's elections
in the autumn this year. In fact, the BND [Federal Intelligence Service] and BfV
[Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,] the two major intelligence
agencies in Germany, put out a report in February saying there was absolutely no
evidence whatsoever the Russians were trying to do this. Merkel didn't like that result.
She told her intelligence agencies to go away and to find more evidence and to find a
case to say that they were indeed trying to interfere in the German elections. It is
collective hysteria.
'Low-level hack'
Adam Garrie, political analyst
RT: Why were members of the Macron team so sure about Russia's involvement in hacking
the campaign? Do they know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?
AG: I strongly doubt that. They barely seem to know how to beat Marine Le Pen. But
with a little help from their friends in the mainstream media, France and elsewhere they
managed to just about accomplish that. It is simply the restating of a tired, old
narrative; they have very little else to say. Macron as a man, if you can even really
call him that in terms of his personality, is more of a viceroy, more of a governor
general than he is a president. Putin, at the press conference he had at Versailles with
Macron, questioned whether France is able to even independently conduct its foreign
policy in Syria, independent of NATO and the US-led coalition. So these people that
really don't have much to offer their own country, let alone their political masters,
are just churning out the narrative again and again. You've seen it with Hillary Clinton
in America, and her supporters, and you see something similar in France. And likewise,
the allegations are based – Donald Trump, probably accurately, said it could have been a
400-pound man in his bedroom somewhere. As the French authorities said today, it was
probably the work of a lone hacker, and the hack itself wasn't at the level of
sophistication that would have even required state operators to be behind it.
RT: Do you think all these Russian hacking allegations during the presidential race
had much impact on the final choice of the new president?
AG: I agree with President Putin on this. All of these hacks and allegations of hacks
have very little impact on the actual electoral results. People are going to look first
and foremost in all countries at domestic issues. Unless you're in the war-zone that's
what the priorities are going to be for voters. They are going to look at tax; they are
going to look at healthcare. They are going to look at living standards, wages,
employment, etc. – these sorts of things. This idea that somehow magically Russia is
pulling the political strings of various candidates in different Western countries is
simply absurd. And I personally give the average voter – whether in France or America –
more credit than the mainstream media is willing to give him.
State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary
such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and
is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
Notable quotes:
"... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said. ..."
"... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
"... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking
them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
"... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first
submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with
sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without
"verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility
in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman
for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from
senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering
it as well.") ..."
"... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately
pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference.
The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position
on the issue. ..."
"... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from
parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.
..."
"... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State
Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials
to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they
took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic
sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said.
"There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said
Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions
policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he
received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed
to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"
Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin,
D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move
quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President
Trump to remove them.
Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former
colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange
a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand
bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before
he left office
announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses
under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.
The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy
moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.
It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators
in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner,
and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications
with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals
that began circulating right after the inauguration.
A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia
sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the
sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have
mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage
of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.
To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret
during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along
with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News
interview ."I would love to try it."
But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching
the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians
to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during
the 2016 election.
Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's
seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop
a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation
in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were
to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including
the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore
- that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage
purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration,
according to
a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this,"
the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians
call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without
some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.
Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified.
These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively
locking them in place - before Trump could lift them
The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without
first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded
with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions
without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all
credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement.
(A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator
did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already
been considering it as well.")
The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national
security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during
the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't
take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm,"
Malinowski said.
But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are
separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election
interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's
position on the issue.
In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results
from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them
each year.
"I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans,"
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
"... In short, we're less than six months into the new presidency. There's a great deal of evidence suggesting it's business as usual despite all the pre and post-election bombast and hysteria ( bombings still popular eg), a soaring stock market, and little evidence of imminent economic collapse. ..."
"... I very much doubt that America will abandon the special relationship with Britain and Europe as long as the majority of the US population can trace their ancestry back across the Atlantic. I also think this special relationship post 1945 was a consequence of a particular set of realities, realities that have changed, and was always less robust than politicians claimed. ..."
"... it seems to me that Germany's ability to export into Britain and the US are far more critical to US-German relations than any of the gases rising out of the swamp. ..."
"... The US has evidently elected to end any efforts to destabilize pro-Russia governments in eastern Europe, which seems to me wise. ..."
"... My sense is that a considerable number of Americans would be extremely reluctant to commit US lives to protecting NATO members that currently do not meet their commitments in troops and cash. ..."
"... The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans spend more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend more, with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system as a whole. ..."
"... And despite German resistance, France and southern Europe are still running significant deficits, with a growing debt, while the ECB buys more of their bonds than the Germans would prefer. Ironically, both the German government and the others like to pretend that Germany has more dominance than it has. The Germans get to look in charge, the other get a scapegoat. ..."
"... Macron, on the other hand, explicitly and openly campaigned on a platform of reduction of public spending, reduction of budget deficit, lowering production costs, increasing productivity and betting that the relative internal devaluation compared to Germany will rebuild its productive capacity. ..."
by
Henry
on
May 31, 2017
I've been thinking about this
Gideon
Rachman piece
over the last 24 hours:
despite her cautious phrasing, Ms Merkel has also behaved irresponsibly -
making a statement that threatens to widen a dangerous rift in the Atlantic
alliance into a permanent breach. it is a mistake to allow four months of the
Trump presidency to throw into doubt a Transatlantic alliance that has kept the
peace in Europe for 70 years Ms Merkel was unwise and unfair to bracket the UK
with Trump's America. In the climate change discussions, Britain sided with the
EU
- not the US. if Ms Merkel's government pursues
the Brexit negotiations in the current confrontational spirit - demanding that
the UK commit to vast upfront payments, before even discussing a trade deal -
she risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and a lasting antagonism between
Britain and the EU. It is hard to see how the UK can be expected to see the
same countries as adversaries in the Brexit negotiations and allies in the Nato
context. So a really hard Brexit could indeed raise questions about Britain's
commitment to Nato - particularly if the US is also pulling back from the
western alliance.
Not so much the broader argument (which I
disagree with
, but in obvious ways) than what the specifics say about the
current state of Financial Times [neo]liberalism.
For a very long time, the Financial Times had a pretty clear position in
debate. It was the organ that made Britain's case in Europe, and Europe's case in
Britain. That went along with a certain style of argument. Committed to free
markets, but with a undertone that they had to have decent outcomes. Pro concerted
action to solve international problems such as global warming. Very much in favor
of Europe's role in helping to cement democracy in Eastern Europe and always ready
to deplore backsliding and corruption. Broadly in favor of small-l [neo]liberalism
with respect to the more dubious authoritarian tendencies of both British and
continental states. Economic inequality was always a dicey set of issues for a
newspaper whose financial model depended in part on the "How to Spend It"
supplement. Perhaps that helps explain the
Chris Giles on Piketty farrago
. But still, on most issues, there was a
reasonably well-defined possibility space of vaguely-left liberal to vaguely-right
liberal positions, triangulating between European and UK perspectives, from which
FT writers (and readers) could draw.
First, I've little argument
with your general remarks regarding the move away from a [neo]liberalism of the
past and the likely trajectory of the FT. I'm surprised, however, by your
(apparent?) willingness to plant your flag in what looks to me to be thin air.
Namely, 'reports' of discord and 'crazed' arguments from the right.
I'm not
sure the right and the left ever had entirely coherent arguments and I'll
certainly conceded it's easier to see the crazy in Trump's flip-flop tweets,
for example. I'd strongly caution reading too much into reports in the FT about
words, however.
The recent Kennedy school study of coverage of the
administration confirms a highly atypical manner of reporting that is often at
odds with realities. I'm certainly not defending any partisan, or position (at
least, here), but rather stressing that there's rarely been a worse time to
parse reality from press reports for reasons that are too obvious to detail
again.
A number of IR observers (including those hostile to the new
president) praised the Saudi trip and the administrations relations with both
Japan and China. Hostile commentary of both Trump and Merkel re: Germany,
including the FT report, make clear that there are merits in Trump's critique
of NATO member contributions, for example.
In short, we're less than six months into the new presidency. There's a
great deal of evidence suggesting it's business as usual despite all the pre
and post-election bombast and hysteria ( bombings still popular eg), a soaring
stock market, and little evidence of imminent economic collapse.
I very much doubt that America will abandon the special relationship with
Britain and Europe as long as the majority of the US population can trace their
ancestry back across the Atlantic. I also think this special relationship post
1945 was a consequence of a particular set of realities, realities that have
changed, and was always less robust than politicians claimed.
You know far more
about markets and international trade than I, but it seems to me that Germany's
ability to export into Britain and the US are far more critical to US-German
relations than any of the gases rising out of the swamp.
The US has evidently elected to end any efforts to destabilize
pro-Russia governments in eastern Europe, which seems to me wise.
There's
a great deal of posturing by those who have constituencies that love posturing,
but beyond that very little has changed, despite the concerted effort by
concerned parties (not you) to make recent events 'truly exceptional' and
'unprecedented.'
A very interesting post. Two observations, of differing nature.
1) I think
part of the current confusion is that the term liberalism, especially of
the Anglo-American variety, has come to describe two overlapping but
significantly distinct phenomena.
On the one hand, it refers to a philosophical
attitude based on a set of philosophical values. In that sense, it ultimately
relies on a specific philosophical anthropology which has been dominant or even
significant almost only in English-speaking Protestant countries and is thus
anthropological at its core.
On the other hand, it refers to a system of
political economy[neoliberalism]. In that sense, it ultimately relies on a specific social
group and is thus sociological at its core.
I think that what Henry is observing can be recast in the following terms:
the countries in which liberalism have been the strongest in the first
sense and in the second sense have been broadly the same during the 1800-1990
period, but that is increasingly not true anymore.
2) The paragraph starting with "This has interesting, but complicated
implications for the continent" in the OP is fascinating. At the risk of being
blunt, I personally believe that the current emerging political and ideological
system on the European continent triggered by Brexit and Trump and led by
Merkel is not correctly described as "European integration" in the sense given
to this term in the 1970s or 1980s: Germany is far too powerful relative to
other actors; it has by now become an almost pure system of domination.
This
system of domination is not based on liberal values in the first sense above;
rather the converse in fact. Arguably, it is not even based on liberal
principles in the second sense: it would make good economic sense for Germans,
French and the rest of European people if Germany agreed to raise very
significantly its wages and to consume more yet, as Henry mentions in the
linked piece at the Monkey Cage, there are considerably resistance coming from
Germany as long as France (or Spain, or Italy, or of course Greece) has not
learned "discipline" or "responsibility".
In particular, even though Macron and his electorate embody liberalism in the second sense almost
as perfectly as was ever achieved in an advanced democracy (and despite his apparent sincere
personal adherence to some form of philosophical liberalism in the first sense), he and his government might
very well end up being drawn in an endless spiral of increasing austerity and
higher unemployment in the (vain?) hope to become more than the national relay
of German power in France (a very balanced but thorough analysis can be read
here
https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/180517/le-soutien-de-lallemagne-indispensable-au-projet-macron?onglet=full
).
@10 Thank you for this. I fear you misunderstand me. My own view is that the
'special relationship' that is so much in danger is and has been a fiction.
The US did not ride to the rescue in 1914, or 1939. From 1945 until 1992 (or
so) the US engaged in a world wide war against communism. NATO never had a
conventional armed force to match that of the eastern bloc and the Soviet
Union. A convincing case can be made that Turkey is/was far more important to
the US military alliance than any nation in Europe.
My sense is that a considerable number of Americans would be extremely
reluctant to commit US lives to protecting NATO members that currently do not
meet their commitments in troops and cash. Both WWI and WWII offer scant
evidence that Americans are likely to feel any urgent need to rush Europe's
defense unless the case can be made that American interests are actually
threatened. I say that as a supporter of NATO who is not American.
I can say that last time so many Americans were convinced they were living
in extraordinary times you ended up invading Iraq. The pages of the NYT have
been filled with the kind of conspiracy tales that one can find easily in the
comments section of Free Republic and Breitbart. The media and politicians rush
to fit the enemy with a crime. The fact that Feinstein and others stress they
have seen no evidence of any crime means nothing. Like Bush and Cheney, these
folks aren't interested in facts, the political WMD must there somewhere, so
'we' have no alternative but to invade/invalidate the election.
What you and your LARGE CAP pals fail to grasp is that the mountain of
evidence growing larger every day accurately reflects the scale of the current
president's success. The establishment of both political parties and the media,
the defeated candidate and the former president still expend unprecedented
levels of energy, cash, and political capitol trying to slow down a geriatric
political neophyte who has somehow tied the oh so much smarter elites in knots.
The net result of which is to confirm for the historical record that no
other president has faced and overcome opposition from the establishment on
this scale. He could yet implode, but as someone once noted 'hope is not a
plan.'
Its interesting that the reader comments under FT articles have never been very
supportive of Theresa May, and in the last two weeks have turned viciously
against her. The number of pro-Corbyn comments is surprising.
Z writes:
- Arguably, it is not even based on liberal principles in the second sense: it
would make good economic sense for Germans, French and the rest of European
people if Germany agreed to raise very significantly its wages and to consume
more yet, as Henry mentions in the linked piece at the Monkey Cage, there are
considerably resistance coming from Germany as long as France (or Spain, or
Italy, or of course Greece) has not learned "discipline" or "responsibility" -
The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans spend
more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend more,
with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system as a
whole. It's not that obvious to me that this makes good economic sense for
everyone, win-win-win. If that deficit spending works as intended, it's good
for the spending countries and neutral for Germany. If it doesn't work, it's
bad for Germany but neutral for the spending countries (who at least got the
spending, even if it doesn't kick-start the wider economy).
And despite
German resistance, France and southern Europe are still running significant
deficits, with a growing debt, while the ECB buys more of their bonds than the
Germans would prefer. Ironically, both the German government and the others
like to pretend that Germany has more dominance than it has. The Germans get to
look in charge, the other get a scapegoat.
The core request from France and southern countries is not that Germans
spend more. It's that they themselves (or at least their governments) can spend
more, with the resulting debt directly or indirectly backed by the Euro-system
as a whole.
No, no, really no, not in the case of Macron, what you
describe would have been the official Hollande position before he abandoned it
in late 2012/early 2013 or the platform of Benoît Hamon (the unsuccessful
presidential candidate from the Party Socialiste).
Macron, on the other hand, explicitly and openly campaigned on a platform of
reduction of public spending, reduction of budget deficit, lowering production
costs, increasing productivity and betting that the relative internal
devaluation compared to Germany will rebuild its productive capacity. What it
asks in Germany in exchange is that it diminishes its trade surplus, raises its
wages and have a sustained growth of its internal demand, so that the
productivity differential between the two economies (which would normally be
corrected by an appreciation of the German currency) be reduced. Echoes from
Germany say that German leaders (though not necessarily Merkel) want Macron to
prove that he is serious about his side of the plan before they do their part
and echoes from the Élysée say that he agreed, which is risky as only quite
intense austerity policies can reduce said productivity differential
unilaterally and such policies in contemporary France, with its already very
low demand, high unemployment and dynamic demography, may lead to an explosive
socio-economic situation.
Conservative writer Erick Erickson
said he knows
one of the White House sources who has leaked information critical of President Trump.
Erickson said on FOX News on May 16 that "more and more White House sources are leaking
to the press so that the president does get the memo people in the White House are
trying to get the president's attention." Erickson said this is "not intentional
sabotage." He said the person he knows who is leaking is a Trump supporter who is
frustrated with President Trump.
Since Erickson said this the leaks from anonymous
sources in the White House have, if anything, increased. Now White House communications
director Mike Dubke has resigned and it doesn't seem a big leap to assume the issues are
related-we shouldn't have to wait long for leaks from the White House to tell us.
At the root of all of this is me-generation,
inside-the-beltway-style thinking, as leaks designed to "get the president's attention"
don't just publicly showcase a lack of loyalty from White House staff, but they actually
expose a complete lack of honor in those doing the leaking. It's hard not to wonder if
these leakers even understand what real honor is.
When those on the inside of an embattled
administration empower themselves by trying to check their boss (in this case the
president of the United States) not from within their chain of command, as they rightly
can, but by anonymously leaking information to the media, then what we have is mutinous
conduct. That is only honorable in one extreme circumstance.
Before getting to that, it should be said anyone who
has spent a good deal of time inside the Beltway has likely been exposed to an unhealthy
dose of Machiavellianism. Anyone who has spent a career in Washington, D.C.'s political
circus might have a hard time clearly comprehending, much less believing in, real honor.
I've even had some who live and work inside the Beltway tell me honor is a quality they
can't afford, as others won't play by gentlemanly rules.
Journalists with that point of view can only do so
much damage, but officials with that view can sink a presidency.
Now sure, a good argument could even be made that
journalists should be circling sharks who feel most emboldened when there is some blood
in the water. And that might be a sound basis for an argument if the Washington media
went after Democrats with the same zeal it does Republican administrations.
But whatever we think of journalists, any reasonable
person will likely agree that when someone takes a staff position in an administration
they are agreeing to support the administration. To accomplish this, instead of trashing
their boss and hierarchy in the media, those within an administration would be wiser to
come to an understanding of what real honor is, or, if they are not happy with what they
signed on for, to leave the administration in protest.
So okay, what is honorable? Dictionary.com begins
defining "honor" as "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions."
That's a fine start, but honor is much more than those lofty words. For a more practical
understanding of honor, it is helps to look at the actions of those who've misunderstood
it.
Edward Snowden is a good example of a person who
showed he didn't understand honor. Hopefully being stuck in Russia's cold embrace has
taught him what he clearly didn't know-though, based on his Tweets, it hasn't.
Some on the right and the left consider what Snowden
did to be honorable, even heroic, because they like that he checked Big Brother. I like
that, too. (I even have a soon-to-be-released novel coming out called
Kill Big Brother
that shows how to get it done right.) But the thing is
Snowden wasn't courageous enough to do the real honorable thing. If he took his
information on government invasions of privacy to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who
helped write the
Whistleblower Protection Act
and is a strong advocate for whistleblowers, or another member of Congress and let the
system fight it out on the inside before, as a last resort, possibly leaking some small
portion of the data to the media, then he could be called honorable from a certain and
very American point of view.
But that's not what he did. According to a bipartisan
report by the House Intelligence Committee, Snowden calculatingly tried to trick
coworkers, sometimes successfully, into giving him their security credentials so he
could access their network drives. He then copied all of the information and, finally,
leaked it.
According to the report
the "vast majority of the documents he stole [had] nothing to do with programs impacting
individual privacy interests-they instead pertain to military, defense, and intelligence
programs of great interest to America's adversaries." Snowden soon fled to China and
then to Russia-two nations that hardly stand up for the values he was supposed to be
fighting for. And he gave those nations this secret U.S. government data.
There is little that is honorable in Snowden's
actions. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), who delivered nearly
three-quarters of a million classified or sensitive military and diplomatic documents to
Wikileaks, also acted dishonorably. He/she should have acted as a whistleblower, not a
leaker.
Meanwhile, those now in the White House who reportedly
decided to check President Trump by leaking information to the media have acted just as
dishonorably.
If honor requires them to act, then it also requires
them to act in an honorable way. It takes real guts to do that, especially when you
realize how the U.S. government's bureaucracy treats whistleblowers-and then realize
that even a congressman can't do much to help a whistleblower even as the
whistleblower's career is destroyed, often by politically appointed bureaucrats who
consider whistleblowers to be traitors.
The honorable, and American, way to check the system
is to use its built-in checks and balances, not to hide behind anonymity while
muckraking in the media. Going outside the system might be honorable if the checks and
balances do not work; checking the entire system like that, however, must be a last
resort in a freely elected democracy. (This is arguably what Deep Throat did.)
Those in the current administration who are uncertain
about what is honorable should pick up a copy of Herman Wouk's 1951 Pulitzer
Prize-winning novel
The Caine Mutiny
.
Or, if they don't have the time, watch the 1954 film version starring Humphrey Bogart,
Van Johnson and Fred MacMurray.
In the film version Captain Philip Francis Queeg
(Humphrey Bogart) shows clear signs of paranoia as he tries to enforce discipline on the
Caine
's
crew. Communications officer Thomas Keefer (Fred MacMurray) soon tries to convince
executive officer Stephen Maryk (Van Johnson) to consider relieving Captain Queeg on the
basis of mental incapacity under Article 184 of Navy Regulations. Maryk refuses, but
finally has to do so when the ship is imperiled by a storm and Captain Queeg falls apart
under the pressure. The film then turns to a court-martial hearing for Maryk and others
for mutiny. They win the case when Captain Queeg falls apart on the witness stand. This
leaves them feeling justified, but then, later, their Navy defense attorney (Jose Ferrer),
now drunk, confronts them and tells them they were wrong. He tells them they should have
helped Captain Queeg along the way instead of mutinously pulling away from him until he
collapsed under pressure. The honorable thing to do was to first try to help.
Honor can be a hard, subtle thing like that,
especially when the boss doesn't always showcase all the traits of a man of honor.
"... The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification. ..."
"... A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates a clash between that individual's self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. ..."
"... So what exactly is Mueller's conflict? He and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004. ..."
"... Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against. ..."
"... Pursuant to his appointment, Mueller has been directed to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But that's not all. He is empowered to investigate "any related matters" . Those last three words are important because they allow the special counsel unfettered discretion to expand his probe in almost limitless directions. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation of alleged campaign collusion with the Russians will inexorably involve President Trump's former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who was fired after his controversial meeting with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. The FBI interviewed Flynn about his meeting and there have been questions raised about Flynn's other Russian contacts. ..."
Robert Mueller has a serious conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving as special counsel.
He has had a long and close relationship with someone who will surely become a pivotal witness –James Comey.
No one doubts Mueller's sterling credentials. That is not the issue. He is imminently qualified. The problem arises in his duty
to fairly and objectively evaluate the evidence he gathers.
How can Americans have confidence in the results if they know the special counsel may harbor a conspicuous bias? They cannot.
The conflict inevitably discredits whatever conclusion is reached. It renders the entire investigatory exercise suspect, and it only
elevates the controversy surrounding it.
For this reason, Mueller should not serve as special counsel.
Conflict Defined
The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest
in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates
a clash between that individual's self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he
can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.
Identical rules govern prosecutors who, for example, must recuse themselves from handling a case against a person with whom they
have worked or had a personal relationship. The same would be true if a prosecutor had a close relationship with a witness in the
case. The prior association raises the real or perceived possibility of prejudice or favoritism which is contrary to the fair administration
of justice.
So what exactly is Mueller's conflict? He and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years
at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over
the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller
as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a
casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
The Investigation
Pursuant to his appointment, Mueller has been directed to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government
and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But that's not all. He is empowered to investigate
"any related matters" . Those last three words are important because they allow the special counsel unfettered discretion
to expand his probe in almost limitless directions.
Mueller's investigation of alleged campaign collusion with the Russians will inexorably involve President Trump's former National
Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who was fired after his controversial meeting with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. The FBI interviewed
Flynn about his meeting and there have been questions raised about Flynn's other Russian contacts.
This is likely what prompted President Trump's private meeting in February with then-FBI Director James Comey in which the president
is alleged to have asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation. The words reportedly used by Mr. Trump hardly constitute an attempt
to obstruction of justice, but that has not stopped Democrats and the media from declaring it a crime.
So it is clear where all of this is headed. Mueller's probe will morph into an investigation of the Trump-Comey meeting to determine
whether the president tried to obstruct justice. It will become a case of "he said he said". Which man will the special counsel believe?
His good friend or the man who fired his good friend? How can Mueller fairly and impartially assess Comey's credibility versus Trump's?
There is also the fairness of the broader investigation to consider. It is reasonable to assume Mueller was not pleased to see
Comey canned. Any animosity which the special counsel may bear could influence the course of his overall investigation into wrongdoing
by President Trump and his associates. He may be tempted to conjure criminality where none really exists.
Even if Mueller takes pains to avoid partiality, how can anyone be assured he will succeed? Even impeccably honest people can
be subject to influence in ways they don't even recognize themselves. It is the human condition. Which is precisely why there are
legal and ethical rules which demand recusal based on prior relationships.
If Robert Mueller truly embraces a fidelity to the law and all its attendant principles of ethics, then he should disqualify himself
from serving as Special Counsel.
Anything less threatens to subvert the rule of law and the trust Americans must have in their system of justice.
Another well-placed, well-timed leak from WaPo. Un-named intelligence official in play again. Is
Russian embassy bugged and all diplomatic correspondence intercepted ? Looks like those guys outdid
STASI. the standard question arises: "cuo bono".
If true, that means that the way information was obtained is iether already known by Russian, or
this channel will be closed really soon. Form the text of the article it looks like the USA is able
to read Russian diplomatic communication. Unless this is yet another disinformation, that means that
the USA obtained the keys used by the embassy for incoding dypolicic communication, or have a modle
who provided this communication by downloading already decoded archive or something like that. Which
actually violates Vienna convention and makes the USA rogue nation not that different from GDR ot the
USSR.
While it is unclear " what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts
with Kushner to Moscow" it is clear who benefit from this revelation. But even if true why to reveal
such an important information for such a minor case. Trump folded. What else "deep state" wants from
him ? Are Hillary friends in State Department and a couple of other intelligence agencies really crazy
about the revenge ?
More questions then answers
Notable quotes:
"... But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing
his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect
of dramatically improved relations with Trump. ..."
"... The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas. ..."
"... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification.
Another manufactured news media story. ..."
"... The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake
news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints! ..."
"... Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after
some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington
Trash prints! ..."
Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a
secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian
diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring,
according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect
Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower,
according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said
Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.
The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance.
But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting
Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications
gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as
well as the Trump team.
Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance,
officials said.
The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The
Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as
a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it's
unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to
Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations
with Trump.
Kushner's apparent interest in establishing a secret channel with Moscow, rather than rely on
U.S. government systems, has added to the intrigue surrounding the Trump administration's relationship
with Russia.
To some officials, it also reflects a staggering naivete.
The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that though Russian diplomats have secure
means of communicating with Moscow, Kushner's apparent request for access to such channels was extraordinary.
"How would he trust that the Russians wouldn't leak it on their side?" said one former senior
intelligence official. The FBI would know that a Trump transition official was going in and out of
the embassy, which would cause "a great deal" of concern, he added. The entire idea, he said, "seems
extremely naďve or absolutely crazy."
The discussion of a secret channel adds to a broader pattern of efforts by Trump's closest advisors
to obscure their contacts with Russian counterparts. Trump's first national security adviser, Flynn,
was forced to resign after a series of false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the Russia investigation after it was
revealed that he had failed to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak when asked during congressional
testimony about any contact with Russians.
Kushner's interactions with Russians - including Kislyak and an executive for a Russian bank under
U.S. sanctions - were not acknowledged by the White House until they were exposed in media reports.
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders
and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with
Moscow, which U.S. intelligence
... ... ....
In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and
Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a "Russian contact"
in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter.
The Post reported in April that Erik Prince, the former founder of Blackwater private security
firm and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on Jan. 11 - nine days before Trump's
inauguration - in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
Tom Lewis · Longs, South Carolina
"Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up
a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using
Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions
from monitoring" .... pretty stiff accusation with this as the news media's source ... 'according
to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another
manufactured news media story.
Paul Schofield · San Diego, California
Everyone knew about this, and it happens with every transition team, and it was done AFTER
Trump won the election, but if it gets the Liberals' panties in a bunch, and CNN more viewers,
the angry Clintonites can scream impeachment for a few hours tonight..... suckers!
Jerry Reich · Arnold, Missouri
The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept
fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints!
Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they
go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except
what the Washington Trash prints!
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts
Something was really wrong with Comey. Such an unprofessionalism is not excusable.
Notable quotes:
"... Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all." ..."
"... Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to leave Intel. ..."
"... So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would anyone believe connections to DHS : ..."
"... To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)? ..."
"... note: this site is a bit tinfoil hat for me, but I liked the way these paragraphs summarized where we are on this ..."
"... In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers. ..."
"... The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naďvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents. ..."
"... I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial Complex ..."
"... The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power. ..."
The fantasy story line inside the Political Industrial Complex* (PIC) is that Team Trump colluded
with Russia to tilt last year's election to Trump. Of course the endless screw ups by Team Clinton,
and the high level of frustration across this great land with PIC and its elites, had nothing
to do with the election results. It has to be those pesky Russkies!
The story goes that the FBI – and all 16 intelligence agencies – concur that the Russians were
targeting the Democrats, and this began with the exposure of DNC emails prior to the Democrat convention
last year.
Well, that's ONE STORY
A fuller picture is becoming evident. One where nearly all the conclusions of Russian influence
are based upon a report from one company –
a company contracted by the DNC --
On Thursday, a senior law enforcement official
told CNN that the DNC "rebuffed" the agency's request to physically examine its computer servers
after the alleged hacking. Instead, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike's assessment that the servers
had most likely been hacked by Russian agents.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers
and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," CNN
quoted the senior law enforcement official as saying. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely
upon a third party for information.
Sounds just like Hillary Clinton and her email server – where the government cannot do a real
investigation of the actual computer evidence. If this sounds fishy, it is. Because this company
is not a middle of the road, independent agent.
It is, in fact, a young start-up with much of its prior success tied to the Obama administration
(less now than when it began 6 years ago), and of course its future rests in the hands of the Intelligence
Community and the niche community of federal cyber-security specialists. All who make their living
off the federal government in one way or the other. They know who is lining their bank accounts
One of the founders is Dmitri Alperovitch who was born in Moscow, Russia in 1980 and who moved
with his family to the US in 1990. Clearly he had not forged nefarious ties to Putin's regime by
the age of 10 when he emigrated, so his Russian background is not really of much interest. But he
does have an interesting past, which I will get to in a second.
Founder Dmitri Alperovitch has been the best known face of CrowdStrike, partly due to the
profile feature done on him by Esquire in late 2016. But his co-founder, George Kurtz
– like Alperovitch, a former executive at McAfee – has had a high professional profile as well.
Worth noting at the outset is that Kurtz obtained a $26 million financing deal for the CrowdStrike
start-up in February 2012
from equity giant Warburg Pincus , after Kurtz had been serving there as the "entrepreneur
in residence."
This equity firm is where the initial seed money for CrowdStrike came from (Warburg was the
only capital investor at the beginning; Google came in with the $100 million in 2015).
Warburg Pincus remains a primary investor in CrowdStrike, along with Google and
Accel Partners . In 2016, Warburg, whose
president since
2014 has been Tim Geithner , Obama's former secretary of the treasury,
raised $29,709 for Hillary Clinton , the largest single recipient of campaign funds raised
by Warburg employees and PACs. (No contributions were made through Warburg-related entities to
Donald Trump.)
That's partly because Chabinsky was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division and
Chief of the FBI's Cyber Intelligence Section before he left the Bureau for private life in 2012
(the year he
joined CrowdStrike ).
But there's more. [Shawn] Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services, and the Chief Security
Officer (CSO) for the company. But when he
came on with CrowdStrike, in April 2012 , he was coming off his final position with the FBI:
Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Service Branch. (Or, as he
was usually referred to, the "FBI's top cyber official.")
In other words, CrowdStrike scored the FBI's two biggest Obama-era cybersecurity names – Henry
and Chabinsky – the year it was formed as a start-up .
Strong ties to Obama's FBI, and one would assume FBI Director Comey. Hmmm .
Alperovitch's first big break in cyberdefense came in 2010 , while he was at McAfee. The head
of cybersecurity at Google told Alperovitch that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists
in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the
breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee's clients.
Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked
to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for
the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she
said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all."
Now just hold on one second here. How in the world does a nobody at MacAfee get on a plane to
meet the Secretary of State in just 3 days? No vetting? No preliminaries with underlings? Just fly
out to DC to review a single paragraph??
This has to be fictional drama.
BTW, earlier in the same article we have this contrary story line:
In 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm
McAfee. While sifting through server logs in his apartment one night, he discovered evidence of
a hacking campaign by the Chinese government. Eventually he learned that the campaign had been
going on undetected for five years, and that the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one
companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms,
and the International Olympic Committee.
While Alperovitch was writing up his report on the breach, he received a call from Renee James,
an executive at Intel, which had recently purchased McAfee. According to Alperovitch, James told
him, "Dmitri, Intel has a lot of business in China. You cannot call out China in this report."
Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling
the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to
leave Intel.
So which story-line is the right one? Not sure, but let's just say not just anyone gets called
to review Hillary's speeches.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would
anyone believe
connections to DHS :
Through their common roots in McAfee, Alperovitch and Kurtz have an extensive history with
top cyber expert Phyllis Schneck, who appears in the Esquire piece from October. In fact,
Alperovitch and Schneck were at Georgia Tech together (see the Esquire article), and
later were
vice presidents
of McAfee at the same time Kurtz was McAfee's chief technology officer (CTO). Alperovitch
has obviously had a close professional relationship with Schneck; their names are both on
four separate patent applications .
To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is
based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed
to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)?
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence that
it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system
and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is
only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naďvely
flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least, Alperovitch
"reported" there was an attack.
I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the
unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial
Complex*
* The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated
on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan
exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and
lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain.
It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news
media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad
news will disrupt said power.
"... Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed ..."
"... All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case. ..."
"... There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Business Standard ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence. ..."
"... Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .) ..."
"... Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact. ..."
"... Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi. ..."
Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking"
claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed
When the US public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire,
or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward
and disprovable.
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had
happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation
into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese
attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened
could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done
business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome
of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide
the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing
whether any such thing is the case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia
supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact
to the . . .
"Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" (
Yahoo ).
"Russian attempts to disrupt the election" (
New York Times ).
"Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" (
ABC ).
"Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" (
The Intercept ).
"a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" (
Time ).
"Russian interference in the US election" (
CNN ).
"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the
New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely.
And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event
in
Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted
as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the
principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence
resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election
so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous
and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try
to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian
interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian
state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." (
March for Truth .)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is
steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility.
People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions
of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction
thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian
influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the
Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi
WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or
whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is
no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered
last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both
claims have passionate believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status
as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by
other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view,
is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts
Something was really wrong with Comey. Such an unprofessionalism is not excusable.
Notable quotes:
"... Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all." ..."
"... Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to leave Intel. ..."
"... So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would anyone believe connections to DHS : ..."
"... To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)? ..."
"... note: this site is a bit tinfoil hat for me, but I liked the way these paragraphs summarized where we are on this ..."
"... In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers. ..."
"... The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naďvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents. ..."
"... I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial Complex ..."
"... The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power. ..."
The fantasy story line inside the Political Industrial Complex* (PIC) is that Team Trump colluded
with Russia to tilt last year's election to Trump. Of course the endless screw ups by Team Clinton,
and the high level of frustration across this great land with PIC and its elites, had nothing
to do with the election results. It has to be those pesky Russkies!
The story goes that the FBI – and all 16 intelligence agencies – concur that the Russians were
targeting the Democrats, and this began with the exposure of DNC emails prior to the Democrat convention
last year.
Well, that's ONE STORY
A fuller picture is becoming evident. One where nearly all the conclusions of Russian influence
are based upon a report from one company –
a company contracted by the DNC --
On Thursday, a senior law enforcement official
told CNN that the DNC "rebuffed" the agency's request to physically examine its computer servers
after the alleged hacking. Instead, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike's assessment that the servers
had most likely been hacked by Russian agents.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers
and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," CNN
quoted the senior law enforcement official as saying. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely
upon a third party for information.
Sounds just like Hillary Clinton and her email server – where the government cannot do a real
investigation of the actual computer evidence. If this sounds fishy, it is. Because this company
is not a middle of the road, independent agent.
It is, in fact, a young start-up with much of its prior success tied to the Obama administration
(less now than when it began 6 years ago), and of course its future rests in the hands of the Intelligence
Community and the niche community of federal cyber-security specialists. All who make their living
off the federal government in one way or the other. They know who is lining their bank accounts
One of the founders is Dmitri Alperovitch who was born in Moscow, Russia in 1980 and who moved
with his family to the US in 1990. Clearly he had not forged nefarious ties to Putin's regime by
the age of 10 when he emigrated, so his Russian background is not really of much interest. But he
does have an interesting past, which I will get to in a second.
Founder Dmitri Alperovitch has been the best known face of CrowdStrike, partly due to the
profile feature done on him by Esquire in late 2016. But his co-founder, George Kurtz
– like Alperovitch, a former executive at McAfee – has had a high professional profile as well.
Worth noting at the outset is that Kurtz obtained a $26 million financing deal for the CrowdStrike
start-up in February 2012
from equity giant Warburg Pincus , after Kurtz had been serving there as the "entrepreneur
in residence."
This equity firm is where the initial seed money for CrowdStrike came from (Warburg was the
only capital investor at the beginning; Google came in with the $100 million in 2015).
Warburg Pincus remains a primary investor in CrowdStrike, along with Google and
Accel Partners . In 2016, Warburg, whose
president since
2014 has been Tim Geithner , Obama's former secretary of the treasury,
raised $29,709 for Hillary Clinton , the largest single recipient of campaign funds raised
by Warburg employees and PACs. (No contributions were made through Warburg-related entities to
Donald Trump.)
That's partly because Chabinsky was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division and
Chief of the FBI's Cyber Intelligence Section before he left the Bureau for private life in 2012
(the year he
joined CrowdStrike ).
But there's more. [Shawn] Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services, and the Chief Security
Officer (CSO) for the company. But when he
came on with CrowdStrike, in April 2012 , he was coming off his final position with the FBI:
Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Service Branch. (Or, as he
was usually referred to, the "FBI's top cyber official.")
In other words, CrowdStrike scored the FBI's two biggest Obama-era cybersecurity names – Henry
and Chabinsky – the year it was formed as a start-up .
Strong ties to Obama's FBI, and one would assume FBI Director Comey. Hmmm .
Alperovitch's first big break in cyberdefense came in 2010 , while he was at McAfee. The head
of cybersecurity at Google told Alperovitch that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists
in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the
breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee's clients.
Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked
to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for
the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she
said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all."
Now just hold on one second here. How in the world does a nobody at MacAfee get on a plane to
meet the Secretary of State in just 3 days? No vetting? No preliminaries with underlings? Just fly
out to DC to review a single paragraph??
This has to be fictional drama.
BTW, earlier in the same article we have this contrary story line:
In 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm
McAfee. While sifting through server logs in his apartment one night, he discovered evidence of
a hacking campaign by the Chinese government. Eventually he learned that the campaign had been
going on undetected for five years, and that the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one
companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms,
and the International Olympic Committee.
While Alperovitch was writing up his report on the breach, he received a call from Renee James,
an executive at Intel, which had recently purchased McAfee. According to Alperovitch, James told
him, "Dmitri, Intel has a lot of business in China. You cannot call out China in this report."
Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling
the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to
leave Intel.
So which story-line is the right one? Not sure, but let's just say not just anyone gets called
to review Hillary's speeches.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would
anyone believe
connections to DHS :
Through their common roots in McAfee, Alperovitch and Kurtz have an extensive history with
top cyber expert Phyllis Schneck, who appears in the Esquire piece from October. In fact,
Alperovitch and Schneck were at Georgia Tech together (see the Esquire article), and
later were
vice presidents
of McAfee at the same time Kurtz was McAfee's chief technology officer (CTO). Alperovitch
has obviously had a close professional relationship with Schneck; their names are both on
four separate patent applications .
To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is
based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed
to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)?
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence that
it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system
and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is
only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naďvely
flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least, Alperovitch
"reported" there was an attack.
I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the
unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial
Complex*
* The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated
on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan
exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and
lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain.
It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news
media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad
news will disrupt said power.
"... Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed ..."
"... All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case. ..."
"... There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Business Standard ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence. ..."
"... Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .) ..."
"... Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact. ..."
"... Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi. ..."
Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking"
claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed
When the US public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire,
or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward
and disprovable.
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had
happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation
into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese
attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened
could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done
business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome
of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide
the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing
whether any such thing is the case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia
supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact
to the . . .
"Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" (
Yahoo ).
"Russian attempts to disrupt the election" (
New York Times ).
"Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" (
ABC ).
"Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" (
The Intercept ).
"a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" (
Time ).
"Russian interference in the US election" (
CNN ).
"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the
New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely.
And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event
in
Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted
as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the
principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence
resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election
so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous
and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try
to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian
interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian
state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." (
March for Truth .)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is
steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility.
People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions
of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction
thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian
influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the
Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi
WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or
whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is
no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered
last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both
claims have passionate believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status
as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by
other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view,
is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
"... As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks ..."
"... Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup ..."
"... Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." ..."
"... While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today ..."
The investigation of the Trump administration continues with the appointment of Robert Mueller
as special counsel to the inquiry into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election. I've refrained
from writing about "Russiagate" to this point, because of how poorly the investigation has been handled
by political leaders and the media.
Scarcely do I see a recognition from these political actors that the report from the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, which supposedly provided evidence of Russian election meddling,
provided no definitive documentation of a direct link between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government. The report concluded that Vladimir Putin personally ordered email hacks of the Democratic
Party to uncover potentially embarrassing information on Hillary Clinton, and to boost Trump's chances
of winning the election. But the report failed to flesh out specific details documenting alleged
Russian efforts to influence the election.
The public was expected to take the charges on faith. This is not to say that Russia is innocent
of trying to sway the election. I have no hard evidence one way or the other on that question, but
as someone who believes in evidence-based reasoning, I don't accept claims that are made without
documentation.
As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively
rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton
stories covered by Wikileaks had a substantive impact on voter choice. Most of these stories
were inside-baseball kind of stuff, including the "revelation" that John Podesta thought Hillary
Clinton has poor political instincts, that the Clinton campaign didn't like Bernie Sanders (a shocker!),
that Clinton supported "open borders" free trade agreements (you don't say?), and that she delivered
a Wall Street speech voicing support for adopting "public" and "private position[s]" on political
issues (politicians lie?!?). In an era of superficiality in American elections, it's also fair to
ask how much attention citizens pay to these kinds of stories. Election scholars have long found
that much of the public votes for candidates based on extremely superficial considerations such as
physical attractiveness, use of buzz words, and an amorphous belief in a candidates' "character."
What little empirical evidence that's been presented so far raises doubts about the impact of
alleged Russian spying on the election. As Harry Egan of 538 writes, despite considerable
public interest in Wikileaks and the election, "Clinton's drop in the polls [in late October
and early November] doesn't line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest" among
the public, as seen in national google searches. "When Wikileaks had its highest search
day in early October, Clinton's poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two
weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails. That is, there isn't one pivotal 'aha!' point
which shows that Wikileaks caused Clinton's numbers to drop There just isn't a clean-cut
story in the data."
The evidence that does exist suggesting that individual news stories influenced the polls cuts
against the Russia-election meddling thesis. In the fall of 2016, Nate Silver summarized various
election-related events and their potential impact as follows: "when a story has broken through to
dominate the news cycle, it usually has moved the polls in the direction that people expected. Trump's
feuds with Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the family of the American soldier Humayun Khan corresponded
with periods when he declined in the polls. The first debate turned into a disaster for Trump in
a way that was predictable based on instant-reaction polls. Trump's convention was a mess, whereas
Clinton's was conventionally effective, and she got a much larger convention bounce. However, Clinton
was hurt by her email scandal resurfacing as a major story line in July. And she declined in the
polls after her 'basket of deplorables' comments and Sept. 11 health scare." Notice that none of
the events cited by Silver were tied back directly to "Russiagate." It seems much more likely that
the re-announcement of the FBI's Clinton email investigation in late-October was a key factor in
swinging what was already a close race.
Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic
Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup
's polling numbers for May 2017 find that just 40 percent of Americans hold a "favorable" view
of the Democratic Party, compared to 39 percent sharing a favorable view of Republicans. And the
Democrats' favorability numbers are in decline, falling from 45 percent in November 2016. The effort
to define Democratic politics through opposition to Trump has backfired. The party has failed over
the last half-year to cultivate any meaningful support from the public. The Democrats have no real
identity anymore outside of resisting Trump, and this kind of "identity" is not something one can
build public support around in terms of consistently winning elections. Hillary Clinton's election
loss exposed the Democrats as a party that's lost touch with the public and is tone deaf to the economic
troubles afflicting Americans.
Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should
grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's
for sale" approach to "governing." Taking an open and honest look at the wheeling and dealing of
the Trump administration, it would be foolish to deny that something fishy is going on in Washington.
Bizarrely, and in a sign of his incompetence, Trump has gone out of his way to suggest that he has
something to hide regarding the Russia investigation. What it is that he may be hiding I can't say
for sure without further evidence, but his behavior up to this point screams scandal. Perhaps, like
former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, he is hiding prominent business investments with Russia.
Trump has consistently and suspiciously refused to release his tax returns, fueling speculation that
he's seeking to hide dubious financial connections with other countries. Trump's stubbornness extends
beyond the "witch hunt" he now laments, as he refused to release these returns during the election
season, prior to the emergence of "Russiagate."
Trump's erratic moves regarding the FBI also suggest something strange is afoot. When you fire
the head of the FBI, and admit in an interview with Lester Holt that it was motivated by Comey's
Russia investigation, that's a red flag. When news stories report that Trump demanded the end of
the Flynn investigation, and when reports suggest Comey's firing was the result of his refusal to
end said investigation, that's another red flag. If nothing else, it opens Trump up to charges of
obstruction of justice. And when Trump has a sit down with Russian diplomats informing them that,
now that Comey's gone, it frees the president up and relieves "great pressure" on him, that's a big
red flag. If Trump is innocent of dubious business or political ties to foreign governments, why
is he going out of his way to play the part of a guilty man?
While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated
at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration
– even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat
money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving
fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today . Flynn blatantly lied about
his financial ties with Russia to federal investigators. And Flynn's economic ties to Russia were
no laughing matter. Such ties coexisted alongside Flynn's private sit-down with the Russian ambassador,
Sergey Kislyak, to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Flynn has now opened himself up to federal charges, specifically to violating the Logan Act, which
prohibits civilians outside the Executive branch from engaging in foreign policy making. Beyond this
legal infraction, though, we see the broader problem of an administration that believes policy is
just another commodity to be bought and sold like any good or service on the market. Those concerned
with basic ethics in government should be displeased with the ham-fisted horse trading engaged in
by Flynn, who accepted money from a foreign government while promising policy reforms that would
benefit said government.
When government officials seek financial gain in exchange for policy quid-pro-quos, it raises
serious ethical questions. That Trump still refuses to recognize how inappropriate Flynn's relationship
was, and that he reportedly wants to bring Flynn back into the Executive fold once the investigation
is over, demonstrates how oblivious he is to basic ethical considerations in government. Fynn's financial
opportunism, of course, is by no means new to Washington. Other political officials regularly cash
in on their business connections, as Obama recently did by giving a lucrative speech on Wall Street.
But even Obama knew to give such speeches after he had served in office, rather than engaging
in clumsy clientelism of the kind done by Flynn.
The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated contempt for transparency and dismissed
the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the Executive and lobbyists. Trump also
demands that non-partisan civil servants pledge "loyalty" to him, even in adversarial cases, like
when former FBI director James Comey was investigating the Executive branch with regard to Russia.
In doing so, Trump demonstrates a commitment to a "fiefdom" style of politics, in which he serves
as a feudal lord over political subordinates. Within this fiefdom, Trump's signaled that Washington
is open for business when it comes to horse trading financial benefits for policy outcomes. His openness
to using the office for financial enrichment is apparent on multiple levels, as seen in the following
instances:
Refusing to sell off his financial investments, or at the very least put them in a blind trust,
prior to serving as president. Trump instead put his children in charge of managing his assets.
There is no way to guarantee that he won't be passively or actively involved in influencing future
investments as president, or that Trump won't make policy decisions in the White House with the
goal of enriching his already existing assets at the expense of the public good.
Relying on campaign advisors and other officials who express various conflicts of interest
regarding personal financial gain and influence peddling. One example is Paul Manafort, the former
chairman of Trump's campaign, who profited as a consultant for a pro-Russia Ukrainian political
party and working for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
Trump's recently announced $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi government, conveniently
coupled with Saudi pledges to invest $20 billion in American "infrastructure" via the Blackstone
Group, a corporation whose CEO Steve Schwarzman has close personal ties to Donald Trump, and another
$100 million to Ivanka Trump's proposed "Women's Entrepreneurs Fund."
There should be nothing shocking about the above stories coming from a president who "authored"
a book titled "The Art of the Deal," and who consistently bragged that, if elected, he would run
the executive via a "deal making," business approach to policy making.
This administration demonstrates contempt for efforts to shine a light on its inappropriate "deal
making." Most recently, Trump sought to block the Office of Government Ethics from securing the names
of former lobbyists who secured waivers to work for the White House and other federal agencies. As
the New York Times reported: "Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working
in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration.
Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are
violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."
... ... ...
Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He
holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling
Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015).
He can be reached at: [email protected]
"... For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism. ..."
"... It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. ..."
"... When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent. ..."
"... At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House. ..."
"... There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. ..."
"... When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself. ..."
"... Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
The deep state is not some enigmatic entity that operates outside the US government. It is the
US state itself. Like all elements of that state, the so-called deep state exists to enforce the
economic supremacy of US capitalism. It does so primarily via the secret domestic and international
police forces like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The operations of these agencies
run the gamut from surveillance to propaganda to covert and overt military actions. Naturally, this
so-called deep state operates according to their own rules; rules which ultimately insure its continued
existence and relevance. Although it can be argued that it was the 1950 National Security Directive
known as NSC-68
along with the Congressional Bill creating the Central Intelligence Agency that launched the
"deep state" as we understand it, a broader understanding of the "deep state" places its genesis
perhaps a century prior to that date. In other words, a structure designed to maintain the economic
and political domination of certain powerful US capitalists existed well back into the nineteenth
century. However, the centralization of that power began in earnest in the years following World
War Two.
For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that
militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism.
It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to
the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest
threat to that access. Not only did this mean the US military would grow in size, it also ensured
that the power of the intelligence sector would expand both in terms of its reach and its budget.
When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress
were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity,
the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent.
As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, the so-called deep state's power continued to grow. Some of
its better known manifestations include the failed attempt to invade revolutionary Cuba that became
known as the Bay of Pigs, the use of psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting individuals as part of a
mind control study, and numerous attempts to subvert governments considered anti-American. Among
the latter actions one can include covert operations against the Vietnamese independence forces and
the murder of the Congolese president Patrice Lumumba. In terms of the "deep state's" domestic operations,
this period saw the intensification of spying on and disrupting various groups involved in the civil
rights and antiwar organizing. Many elements of the domestic operation would become known as COINTELPRO
and were directed by the FBI.
Although the agencies of the so-called deep state operate as part of the US state, this does not
mean that those agencies are of one mind. Indeed, like any power structure, there are various factions
represented. This means that there are disagreements over policies, priorities, direction, and personnel.
The only certainty is that all of its members agree on the need to maintain the supremacy of US capital
in the world. At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive
Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples
of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after
its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government
intelligence operations in the White House.
There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business
and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has
been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned
agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia
and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current
leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November
2016.
Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against
himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not
the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented
by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI,
CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use
the power of these agencies against their opponents. Indeed, he would most likely greatly enhance
those agencies' power, making a further mockery of the US Constitution. If Trump is able to get the
agencies of the deep state to work for the factions he represents-either by replacing those loyal
to others not named Trump or by cajoling and coercing them to change their loyalty-he will think
the deep state is a great thing. In this way he is no different than every other US president. He
understands that whoever controls the deep state controls the US. The struggle we are witnessing
between the FBI and the Trump White House is part of a power struggle between US power elites.
When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one
side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers,
especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to
the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself.
A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
President Donald Trump is
about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal.
Bernie Sanders
and Sean
Hannity are Russian agents. The
Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using
Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a
traitor for
refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was
a secret Russian
agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions
as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart
and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between
Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump
will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed
to confirm.
Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian
and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her
283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch
is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler (
226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer
Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers
).
There's also a handful of websites, like
Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly
exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell
funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's
70,000 Facebook fans.
Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping
into the mainstream discourse. In March,
the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they
should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two
months prior to that, Mensch had penned a
lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims
to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit
Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday,
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand
jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were
Mensch and Palmer:
Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too
cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.
"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White
House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't
exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump
in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."
Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded
speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole
of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.
The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation
into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless
hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of
gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's
election.
"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize
- and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor
at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern
being repeated."
Anatomy of a conspiracy theory
The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job"
or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian
influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything
that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump
administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.
There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've
written about them personally
over and
over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian
hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible
and
somewhat supported by the available evidence .
The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.
Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one
legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic
between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks (
before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January,
she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's
exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.
Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship
"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to
Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American
policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an
April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian
government in hacking the election."
Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed
that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against
"the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.
She's also suggested that
Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the
news:
I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting
not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker
, working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who
hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement
officials.
And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:
Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she
refused and called me a
"dickhead."
But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas
on Twitter.
One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned
in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent
a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the
time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared"
(the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter
since 2013
).
"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the
Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me.
"That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's
disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."
Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on
Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his
speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya
(disinformation), or Chekist
, a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's
Russia.
This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its
members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their
enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies
of being Chekists.
Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims
to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information
into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge
what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that
are on the way.
These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump
is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.
These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information
circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter
search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many
of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also
reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper
Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account
Counterchekist
, and financial analyst
Eric Garland
(best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)
Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to
Quantcast ,
a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more
than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook,
according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that
Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.
This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.
These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of
power
To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars:
Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three
of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form
political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing
from the Russiasphere.
"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the
left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence
in the White House," Reifler says.
The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in
America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership
in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.
"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs,
especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics,
that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false
information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."
In
one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms
of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms
of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.
The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation
between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question,
just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control
didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical
reasoning skills.
"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't
that many people who are willing to do that."
In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math
problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and
the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their
political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories.
You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing
something evil behind the scenes.
The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So
because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of
white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism
and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs
and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald
J. Trump.
There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the
Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a
"trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for
good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies
may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know
the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want
someone to fill in the blanks for them.
"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're
among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks
like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish
claims."
This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual
penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled
liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits
the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these
ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying
this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media
outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.
But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to,
is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.
For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC
chair Donna
Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":
A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that
the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:
Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a
Palmer Report
story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price
tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the
same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to
BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.
"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended
disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story
seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its
accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."
What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators
being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary
people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest
in factual accuracy.
This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again
in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes
a core and important part of what Democrats believe.
"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about
Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other
affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."
That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about
Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic
elites to correct it.
Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against
this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous,
then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the
Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center
of the political conversation.
"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this
kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on
the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."
So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed
up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the
people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer
to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.
It is not so much the secret diplomacy but the background of business contacts and favors owed
to Russian investors. IF there were only some way Trump could release some documents that might
help dispel those lingering doubts...
I just finished the 1951 pamphlet by George Washington Armstrong titled
Third Zionist War
There is loads of interesting material in it, but what made me bring it up now is the "red
scare".
In 1951 things looked pretty bleak for the US:
- To a large degree the US had demilitarized.
- Mao had conquered China with the collusion of Marshall and the Communists in the Truman administration.
- Stalin was busy putting up the Iron Curtain around all of eastern Europe and Germany lay starving
and devastated.
- The US navy was blockading Taiwan in the Taiwan straights so Mao could attack McCarthy in N.
Korea with out fear of a nationalist invasion.
- McCarthy's desire to bomb the bridges and Chinese camps across the border were denied.
- Truman turned down the offer of 350,000 nationalist Chinese soldiers to help in N. Korea from
Chang Kai Chek.
- The Zionists in the senate were blocking the stopping of the continuing looting of German industry
by the Morgenthau plan.
- The Germans were furious with Eisenhower and the Nuremburg sham trials.
- Zionist spies within the Truman administration were leaking nuclear secrets and everything else
to the soviets.
It is also important to note that Rothschild is derived from "red shield", so when you write
"red scare" it is not clear if the scare is due to Zionism or just "useful idiot" Communism. In
any case Armstrong points out who exactly had caused the Korean "Police Action" and the death
of 50,000 US soldiers. It was the same group steering US politics whether you choose to describe
them as Communists or Zionists. Just as with the Russian Revolution in 1917 that cause so many
millions of deaths.
The "red scare" is a "red herring" and the deep states continued usage of it diminishes the
degree of the threat that Zionism and its symbiotic cousin Communism poses to the entire planet.
Remember the future can be changed,have you ever read up on Edgar Casey? His vision of the future
was not a WW3 but an environmental catastrophe if the world did not right itself. The disaster
would be flooding on a grand scale,the Great Lakes flood into the Mississippi, the sea level's
worldwide rise at least 60 feet, America is halved and much of it becomes islands. Europe is uninitiated
as well. Not sure what would happen re the world's nuclear plants, they were before his time:)
My favourite British Airways stuff-up rumour is that it was caused by corporate thriftiness -
out-sourcing IT to India.
Airliners spend ~80%+ of their total service life airborne, so the down-time alone is costing
shiploads of cash per minute. Reputation damage won't help either...
That's a good one. I say that France is living a second occupation since Sarko and Holland.
And Macron being a pure creature of the Deep State or whatever else you might call it proves my
point.
It will be intereting to see what will come out of Putin's visit to Paris though.
"... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
"... intelligence sources ..."
"... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
"... four years earlier ..."
"... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be
very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.
In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate
in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't
much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them
as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence
assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret),
probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other
words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important
part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many
rewrites produced a consensus opinion.
A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy,
or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So:
question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence
is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to
the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the
assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of
words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence
assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin.
All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look
like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that
don't look like the real thing.
Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you
don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and
you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for
example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys
to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and
how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few
certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.
So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand,
has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of
itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely
easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create
the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films
of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day).
It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake.
There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social
media.
An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.
So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social
media "evidence"?
I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when
Marie Harf, the then US State
Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the
Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed
that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing
up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.
There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were
becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either
not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were
were then modified to please the Boss.
If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion
that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence
professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants
to hear.
We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media
and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we
seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a
modified hangout and very far from convincing .
This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the
DNI report of 6 January
2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier
about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the
2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election
chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably
to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.
In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure
that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very
confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the
Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". (
See 10:30
). Jeffrey Carr: "
Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange:
not a state actor. Even
those
who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the
NSA
can mimic Russians or anyone else .
In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that
the responders
didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media
machine wound up its sirens. The
intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting"
and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have
to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow
trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart
by
Theodore Postol .
So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having
their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else
that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like
hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.
Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).
Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the
MH-17 report.
DHS "does not provide any warranties".
The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".
Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.
"Pro-opposition social media reports".
There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed,
of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little
such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.
In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:
The normal process of producing intelligence assessments was not observed in the above cases;
"Intelligence assessments" were fabricated relying on social media (one can only assume because
there was nothing else);
Is really Russian ambassador so negligent that he posted such an information over open channel? I doubt it. that means that
Hayden may be lying and this is just a part of Purple revolution campaign of discreditation of Trump administration. Otherwise he reveals
that the NSA broke Russian diplomatic communication cipher, which is biog NO-NO.
Notable quotes:
"... Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies." ..."
"... Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
Kushner's reported actions suggest "we are in a really dark place as a society," Michael Hayden said.
Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that the reported plan by chief White House adviser Jared Kushner's to arrange
secret communications with the Russians during President Donald Trump's transition was "off the map" and like nothing he has seen
in his lifetime.
Hayden wants to chalk up the stunning plan to "naivete" rather than evil intentions - but that's not reassuring, he said in an
interview on CNN.
"Right now, I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me," he said. "What manner of ignorance, chaos,
hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate
idea?"
Hayden was commenting on reports, which first appeared in The Washington Post Friday, that Kushner discussed last December establishing
a secret communication channel with the Kremlin - using Russian facilities - without any monitoring by the U.S.
Kushner discussed the idea in Trump Tower with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., who was surprised by the request,
the Post reported, because of security risks such an arrangement would pose to both countries.
Kushner emerged last Thursday as a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential
election.
Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent
stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies."
Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government
institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was
that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community.
"What degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing would
be required again to think this was an acceptable course of action?" he asked.
Hayden added: "It says an awful lot about us as a society that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs
of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or ... to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate
to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power - a foreign power that some in government alleged you were cooperating
with to affect the American election."
It's evidence, he added, that "we are in a really dark place as a society."
They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
Notable quotes:
"... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
"... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
"... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect
Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes
office.
Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence
agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."
Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started
when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".
People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have
become a grave American national security threat."
"... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
"... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
"... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Conservative Review ..."
"... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
"... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
"... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
"... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
"... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
"... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is
supposed to have said,
then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.
Thus the Ruling Class's
Trayvon Martin ,
Ferguson
and
Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated
Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite
its black clients against the white American majority.
It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump
was
always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate
votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could
be guilted into capitulation,
like Richard Nixon,
unlike Bill
Clinton ).
The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical
proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system
- and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to
bureaucrats and
kritarchs
.
Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four
words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared
in his recent columns,
here and
here
and
here .
... ... ...
Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969,
now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything
yet seen under Trump:
Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of
thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major
media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting
out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the
Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as
well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It
is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon
Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7.
"The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."
This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled
neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point,
although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized
by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.
Contrary to his current
Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding
his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.
... ... ...
Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked
a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend,"
says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "
... ... ...
Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the
office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.
.... ... ...
What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight
on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally,
the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration,
which out-of-control Leftist
judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution.
Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic
American Nation is inextricable from his own.
Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal
year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate
rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction
of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been
passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.
In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the
filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the
issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The
president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals
for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address
from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding
action from Congress to deal with the courts.
Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and
continuing every major Obama policy.
He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible
ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign
at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.
Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying
and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys
were hard to find anywhere.
President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases
near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World
War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.
This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding,
and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required.
Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm
Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een
breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.
The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer.
Translation:
That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with
all that post WWII USA has as values.
Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with
EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.
European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer
supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor.
Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do
not see the need for high military expenses.
The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing.
It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out
soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those
who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.
My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was
an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump
really needs to come out swinging.
I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold
Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was
a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born
White American Extermination Act.
Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.
Scratch
a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.
All evidence
points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US
civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.
Evidence
is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by
an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a
bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living
i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared
and so will the ragtag American empire.
Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached,
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.
Green said,
"This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live
in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.
When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was
investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you
couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he
went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have,
when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable
offense."
I think greed is the key factor in this particular chain of leaks story.
Notable quotes:
"... Kushner was assigned the job of meeting with Russian officials and bankers by then President-elect Trump, so he wasn't doing anything secretive or surreptitious. ..."
"... Gingrich also noted that there's not a single named source for the story, much like The Washington Post report last week that claimed a senior White House official close to the president was described as a "person of interest" in the Russia probe. ..."
"... He added that if the leakers are involved in former FBI Director Robert Mueller's investigation, he should be enraged. ..."
"... "He ought to lock somebody up," Gingrich said. "The people who leaked the British story were not in the White House. They were in the intelligence community, and they ought to go to jail." ..."
....On "The Story" tonight, Newt Gingrich pointed out that Kushner was assigned the job of
meeting with Russian officials and bankers by then President-elect Trump, so he wasn't doing anything
secretive or surreptitious.
Gingrich also noted that there's not a single named source for the story, much like The Washington
Post report last week that claimed a senior White House official close to the president was described
as a "person of interest" in the Russia probe.
"I find that, frankly, sickening," Gingrich said, explaining that these reports are distracting
from Trump's "amazing, historic" foreign trip.
"How do you know any of it's true?" Gingrich asked.
He added that if the leakers are involved in former FBI Director Robert Mueller's investigation,
he should be enraged.
"He ought to lock somebody up," Gingrich said. "The people who leaked the British story were
not in the White House. They were in the intelligence community, and they ought to go to jail."
"... Purely speculating, I suppose that, from the point of view of the people revealing this information, the end of removing Trump justifies the means. They must believe that it is very important to remove Trump. ..."
"... Unless there has been a major breakdown in US sigint procedures, it seems very unlikely that acknowledgement of cracking of high-level Russian crypto system would be released so casually. ..."
"... I immediately began speculating that someone is trying to panic the Russians ..."
"... IMO, Pat Buchanan has been spot on in his recent notes. His suggestion that President Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the leakers is necessary to combat this war of innuendo ..."
"... The cover-up of MH-17 and the consequences of the truth being revealed in the public eye. Must maintain Cold War 2.0! ..."
"... Newspaper publishers and senior editors don't actually have a committee that reaches consensus and hands orders down, they all have similar experience and backgrounds, they have lunch together, they often do each other favors, they talk, they know what each other's opinions are. The "Deep State" is the same. Back in the '50s we referred to them as The Eastern Establishment, the descendants of the New England aristocracy who had a generations-long tradition of "public service," i.e. running the government the way they thought it should be run. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were from that milieu. ..."
"... I strongly agree, though, that much of the current hysteria is largely being driven by the Democratic scammers and highly paid "consultants" who are trying to hold on to the money and power they get from their positions. ..."
"... It seems rather apparent that the memes of "Russia brazenly interfered in our pure American democracy" and "Trump team meeting with Russian officials had sinister motives" are just cynical sticks to beat Trump with. ..."
"... Isn't it revealing that the WaPo, Times, CNN, NBC hysteria is all about the request for private communication channels between Trump transition and the Russians and not about the leak that the NSA broke Russian secure communications? ..."
"... Trump needs to get to the bottom of this and start heads rolling and fast. Heads rolling includes firings and prosecutions where applicable. He's supposed to be the consummate businessman. If someone in my department (fortune 500 company) released confidential corporate info to the press, financial or market details, there would be a serious cleaning of house. ..."
"... The block of Trump voters that was unusual in that they were not Republicans or GOP-leaning independents, would constitute a small, albeit decisive, percentage of Trump's total vote. Why such a small bloc should prove threatening to elites that enjoy the support of much larger groups of supporters is not obvious to me. ..."
"... Of course this is mooted now by President Trump's facile willingness to throw that bloc under the bus in his administration staffed partly with Wall Street titans and lobbyists, and, with a healthcare plan designed to hammer white older supporters in the purple swing states and red south. It appears Trump was just kidding about bringing back the middle class, and providing all Americans with cheaper, better, lower out-of-the-pocket healthcare. ..."
"... Perhaps this is an attempt to get the Russians to change their current system in the hopes that they will introduce a vulnerability. If so, the signal has been sent several times. ..."
"... This is far from the first supposed leak that revealed our ability to intercept Russian communications. Is this one worse than the last few times (recall the intercepts where Kislyak supposedly bragged about being able to use Flynn to influence Trump)? ..."
"... Time will tell if these are bonafide leaks or if someone in the IC is playing the long game against the Russians. ..."
"... I'm with Jack, that the simplest explanation is that Hillary was an uninspiring candidate. She couldn't get many Democrats enthused, let alone independent voters in the crucial states in the mid-west where the election was decided. ..."
"... IMO, the character of the election would have been very different if the Democrats had nominated Sanders. He had the enthusiasm factor on his side and a similar message against free trade and useless wars that would have competed well with Trump in the mid-west. Remember that Sanders defeated Hillary in the Michigan primary. ..."
"... The crux of the issue is that the Democrat establishment don't want to accept responsibility that they are Borgist to the core and will do everything to prevent a real outsider from getting their party nomination. At best they'll nominate a faux outsider like Obama. ..."
"... I am willing to bet that what we are observing is a BORG operation-not a Russian one. Let us pick reasonable stakes/time-frame and we can shake on it. ..."
"... For example it seems someone may have infiltrated the legislative branch's IT as well: http://www.wftv.com/news/politics/few-public-answers-to-puzzle-in-congressional-it-investigation/527155464 ..."
"... I see no reason the RNC would have to go to Guccifer2 or Russians for the data. All of that is readily available from certain vendors in the US. These vendors seem to me to be fairly unscrupulous and highly profit oriented. They'd sell their own mother for a few bucks, IMO. ..."
"... Even if the companies refused to sell DNC specific data to the RNC, these companies are populated with highly skilled, but hungry, tech workers from India and Pakistan that have access to probably just about everything (I know because I have hired some of these guys fresh off these projects myself and I like talking to them about their experience, especially after getting a few drinks into them). Some of them would steal and sell data and reports. Guccifer2 seems totally unnecessary. ..."
"... The RNC establishment dislikes Trump almost as much as the Democrats. ..."
"... Good point. I don't see where any of these people are saying they did it on Trump's behalf. I begin to think that Guccifer2 in a US person. I begin to think that this is all a US operation. I will sorely disappointed if Trump doesn't clean these people up and out. Maybe even one car accidents are in order for some of them. ..."
"... The suggestion that 'Guccifer 2.0' was linked to Russian intelligence originally came from 'CrowdStrike' and Dmitri Alperovitch . One can think of few better reasons for suspecting that – whatever his nationality – he was part of a Western-orchestrated 'information operation'. ..."
"... On the credentials of 'CrowdStrike' and Alperovitch, and the corruption of the cybersecurity industry, see a piece posted on 8 May by Jeffrey Carr entitled 'Cyber Intelligence and the Imaginary Other'. In general, Edward Luttwak is not a favourite person of mine, but the remarks Carr quotes from him about the very serious dangers of dealing with other countries on the basis of what you want to believe are to the point ..."
"... When you have a situation where people like Alperovitch can make very large sums of money by telling people what they want to hear, this makes it all too easy for people in positions of power and influence to lock themselves in a bubble. ..."
"... 'Crowdstrike's "Danger Close: Fancy Bear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units" is a perfect example of performing cyber attribution with zero ground truth and, as Luttwak described, creating an imaginary "other" rather than making the effort to actually speak with people who know the facts on the ground. ..."
"... In a piece entitled 'Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach RunawayTrain?', Carr treated the suggestion with the contempt it – amply – deserves: 'OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor.' ..."
"... Good thing coming from all that is that at least 60-70% of decent Americans whom still trusted the system will see that political system is completely broken and that change through political means is impossible. ..."
"... Colonel, isn't there another possibility: the information was obtained via a bug placed inside Trump Tower, thereby allowing someone to listen in on that conversation between Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak? The leak of that information could then be used to embarrass Team Trump, and the "news" about the information being obtained from decrypted Russian communications may simply be a cover story intended to disguise the illegal method used to obtain it. ..."
"... After all, which is more difficult: a) decrypting secure diplomatic communications b) sneaking into Trump Tower and planting a bug ..."
"... But consider this: if somebody bugged Trump Tower then they will know two things with certainty: 1) What Was Said between Kushner and Kizlyak 2) Kizlyak will report to Moscow on What Was Said. ..."
"... So, your theory is that the Obama Administration ordered an illegal surreptitious physical bugging of Trump Tower in order to know what the Trumpies were talking about. Well, that is what Trump claims as well . pl ..."
"... No, I didn't say that. I said that I agreed that any "black bag job" on Trump Tower done under the authorization of a FISA or other court warrant would be legal.What I pointed out (correctly) is that the absence of such a FISA warrant doesn't not mean that Trump Tower has not been bugged, and I brought up the instance of Tricky Dickie's plumbers to illustrate that point. ..."
"... And the FBI: looking into Trump-Russia for 10 months, nothing to show for it and meanwhile the torrential disclosure of really sensitive secrets continues unabated. Federal Bureau of Incompetence. ..."
"... I know that you don't know, but the lack of action by the responsible officials is worsening this whole mess. Politicians (Sessions, Pompeo) -- talkers not doers. And Trump??? Instead of kicking these guys asses to fix it, he's tweeting and throwing tantrums. ..."
Purely speculating, I suppose that, from the point of view of the people revealing this information,
the end of removing Trump justifies the means. They must believe that it is very important to
remove Trump.
Possibly they are right.
I agree that the people who decide to burn assets as in this case must believe it is more important
to remove Trump, but I don't know their reasons for thinking so. I think Pence will be at least
an order of magnitude worse. I can't even begin to imagine if Pence gets removed, too, how much
worse Paul Ryan would be.
I would not exclude though that the breach was not a real breach. The Russian ambo is a professional
player. Some maskirovka may be part of this.
What is the most important though is that the media and IC try to fabricate a scandal out of
contacts between presidential advisors and foreign diplomats.
It is the constitutional prerogative of the president to set and do foreign policy as he sees
fit. His advisors acted in his name when they contacted Russian diplomats to set up a communication
backchannel. Advisors of former presidents have done the same in such cases. It is nether a scandal
nor a crime.
The real scandal are these leaks and the interference by the Intelligence Community and its
puppets into the president's constitutional prerogative.
Trump will not be impeached. It's all about the midterms, which might though I think not deliver
a House majority ot the Democrats. But there will be no impeachment. President Pence? Don't hold
your breath.
Henshaw -> Bill Herschel
,
Unless there has been a major breakdown in US sigint procedures, it seems very unlikely that
acknowledgement of cracking of high-level Russian crypto system would be released so casually.
More likely that Russians intentionally sent it through a less secure/known compromised channel.
Fredw
,
I immediately began speculating that someone is trying to panic the Russians
using information
obtained from some other source. On the other hand, you seem to imply that successful interception
of communications is common and to be expected. I don't know what to think. I am floored.
Ghostship
,
US SIGINT successfully intercepts and decrypts what must surely be encrypted Russian diplomatic
communications.
Maybe they're the communications the Russian aren't bothered about or even want the U.S. IC to
intercept and decrypt. In this case the information is not sensitive as far as the Russians are
concerned but it being made public demonstrates there are major problems somewhere in the U.S.
government, and I'm
assessing
probably the State Department.
Andy
,
Even as an intel guy I realize that leaks are sometimes necessary and inevitable in a free
society, but these recent actions are unjustified and were carried out for the sole purpose of
court intrigue/beltway partisan politics.
Jack
,
This was exactly my feeling on reading the WaPo story. There should no longer be any doubt
the extent the NeverTrumpers in the media and upper echelons of government will go to take him
down. No national security secret is sacrosanct enough for these people. What makes them so desperate?
Or has the level of callousness reached such a level that any and all of them believe they can
act with impunity? The NeverTrumpers should recognize the genie is now out the bottle and every
future president will be subject to the whims of this unaccountable fifth column.
IMO, Pat Buchanan has been spot on in his recent notes. His suggestion that President Trump
appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the leakers is necessary to combat this
war of innuendo
.
And second, who is gonna be next after the Confederate leaders
in the cross-hairs of the PC crowd? The respect for both sides in our civil war is being thrown
away by denigrating the southern leadership while absolving the Unionists of their rape & pillage.
Thomas -> Jack
,
The cover-up of MH-17 and the consequences of the truth being revealed in the public eye.
Must maintain Cold War 2.0!
The US MSM is party to this frenzy of destruction. Both seem not to care how much damage this
is doing to the United States.
The world watches in wonder and bemusement at this spectacle. Russia and China probably cannot
believe their good fortune in having their main adversary/competitor thus publicly commit
harakiri
.
The term "Deep State" implies a bureaucratic conspiracy. IMO that is very unlikely. If there
is a conspiracy against trump it is among the Democratic holdovers among presidential appointees.
A number of them have the access required to receive such documents. pl
Newspaper publishers and senior editors don't actually have a committee that reaches consensus
and hands orders down, they all have similar experience and backgrounds, they have lunch together,
they often do each other favors, they talk, they know what each other's opinions are. The "Deep
State" is the same. Back in the '50s we referred to them as The Eastern Establishment, the descendants
of the New England aristocracy who had a generations-long tradition of "public service," i.e.
running the government the way they thought it should be run. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles
were from that milieu.
I strongly agree, though, that much of the current hysteria is largely being driven by
the Democratic scammers and highly paid "consultants" who are trying to hold on to the money and
power they get from their positions.
Sam Peralta
,
This leak that we can decrypt Russian secure diplomatic communications proves that those intent
on bringing down Trump, hate him more than the purported enemy Russia.
It seems rather apparent that the memes of "Russia brazenly interfered in our pure American
democracy" and "Trump team meeting with Russian officials had sinister motives" are just cynical
sticks to beat Trump with.
Actors within our federal government are quite happy destroying
our SIGINT advantage if that means they can take down Trump.
Isn't it revealing that the WaPo, Times, CNN, NBC hysteria is all about the request for
private communication channels between Trump transition and the Russians and not about the leak
that the NSA broke Russian secure communications?
It is IMO much more likely that the spy (leaker) is a presidential appointee who is a holdover
from the BHO Administration rather than a professional employees of the IC. You greatly over estimate
the power of the IC. Normally, the political appointees manipulate the IC people and not the other
way around.
I would point to people like Evelyn Farkas who several times said on TV that she and a group
of Democrats have banded together to screw Trump by using their access to government information.
As for Maskirovka, what advantage would the Russians see in inventing a story like this? pl
I would not exclude though that the breach was not a real breach. The Russian ambo is a
professional player. Some maskirovka may be part of this.
Are you suggesting, however indirectly, the Russians helped out the Trump government by feeding
a false info into the US media stream? with the knowledge it would lead nowhere but distract attention
for a while?
Ok then. I thought you were being tongue in cheek b/c it would represent such a massive violation
of US espionage rules that it couldn't possibly be actually happening.
So you're serious.
Trump needs to get to the bottom of this and start heads rolling and
fast. Heads rolling includes firings and prosecutions where applicable. He's supposed to be the
consummate businessman. If someone in my department (fortune 500 company) released confidential
corporate info to the press, financial or market details, there would be a serious cleaning of
house.
Examples would be made. It would be ugly, but understood as totally necessary. That
Trump has not begun this process is very disconcerting.
There is no
conspiracy
.
Trump is not fit for the office. He is now in
zugzwang
because if he throws anyone
out of the inner circle they will reveal the level of ineptitude, and if he brings anyone in from
outside, they will find out about it. His sons, who are supposed to be running his business interests
at arm's length, invited themselves to a GOP high-level strategy meeting; the emoluments clause
be damned.
And Hillary, and the accompanying
Clinton crime family, was fit?
different clue -> TV
,
To suspect that Trump is not fit for office is not to retro-decide that Clinton would have
been fit for office after all.
My low opinion of many aspects of Trump does not elevate my opinion-after-the-fact of Clinton.
Nor does it make me wish in hindsight that I had voted for Clinton after all. I always considered
Trump a dangerous risk worth running to avoid the certain danger of a President Clinton.
This story states above the fold, right corner that US officials who either produced the
report of the intercept or received the report of this successful intercept outside the IC
in State, Defense, the NSC, etc. informed the Washington Post of the frailty of Russian diplomatic
communications
Para. 2: "
,according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S.
officials." - is that the part to which you refer?
If your premise is right; that the leak exposes the fact that Russian diplomatic communications
are insecure, this would appear to make what Snowden did look like a minor transgression. It would
also appear to indicate that the leaker considers Trump a greater risk to national security that
Russia. This rather ironically somewhat undermines the whole 'links to Russia' thing.
Crown Jewels of this magnitude must be a
very
closely guarded secret - i.e. very few
people in the IC community and even fewer outside would be aware of the fact that Russian diplomatic
encryption has been compromised. Intel reports produced using such sensitive source data must
go to great lengths to disguise the nature of that source. Surely only the POTUS and a handful
of other very senior officials would have access to raw decrypted intercepts. If this part of
the WaPo article is to be believed then, the leaker would seem to be among a very rarefied group.
"Crown Jewels of this magnitude must be a very closely guarded secret
,"
Yes and no. Reports are shared, not raw intercepts (typically not, but who knows?). The "gist"
of the collection point was likely in the report(s) mentioned in the article, but not the details
that are more tightly controlled.
You obviously know more about such matters than I do.
However, it seems to me that actions are being taken by a number of persons, all aimed at bringing
down the Trump presidency (without, of course, any obvious collusion between them). The motivation
behind this could be either or both of the following:
Because his victory was based on the mobilisation of ordinary Americans (who are normally not
part of the political process). The political energisation of this bloc threatens established
politicians and political parties, and their allies in the military-intelligence-industrial-media
complex (which, I think, you refer to as the Borg). Because he advocated policies that would
end the Cold War being waged by the Borg against Russia (policies that benefit the Borg, and
enable parts of it to acquire both power and resources).
It seems to me that both of these are in play. Which implies that both the Democratic establishment
as well as (at least, some) members of the Borg are behind this vicious campaign. I have no proof
whether there is any overt collusion between (though it would surprise me if at least some individuals
among the two groups did not consult together).
The block of Trump voters that was unusual in that they were not Republicans or GOP-leaning
independents, would constitute a small, albeit decisive, percentage of Trump's total vote. Why
such a small bloc should prove threatening to elites that enjoy the support of much larger groups
of supporters is not obvious to me.
Of course this is mooted now by President Trump's facile willingness to throw that bloc
under the bus in his administration staffed partly with Wall Street titans and lobbyists, and,
with a healthcare plan designed to hammer white older supporters in the purple swing states and
red south. It appears Trump was just kidding about bringing back the middle class, and providing
all Americans with cheaper, better, lower out-of-the-pocket healthcare.
As far as point number two goes, the reply to anybody who thinks Russia might be converted
to a friend rather than a foe has to begin with:
"Perhaps the USA should target their nuclear deterrent at someone else, and, perhaps the Russians
could do the same."
Perhaps this is an attempt to get the Russians to change their current system in the hopes
that they will introduce a vulnerability. If so, the signal has been sent several times.
This is far from the first supposed leak that revealed our ability to intercept Russian
communications. Is this one worse than the last few times (recall the intercepts where Kislyak
supposedly bragged about being able to use Flynn to influence Trump)?
Time will tell if these are bonafide leaks or if someone in the IC is playing the long
game against the Russians.
"..until we understand the full scope of the Russian info op."
If you had to speculate, what would be the extent of this info op by the Russians? Since Clapper
& Brennan and the breathless MSM have this incredible campaign of innuendo, I am curious what
this info op could possibly be. Have the Russians executed such an info op anywhere else that
we could look to get a sense?
"The Trump/RNC ground game was way more sophisticated and far reaching than anyone gives
them credit for."
I don't believe they had much of a GOTV campaign, compared to Hillary's. They just didn't have
the staffing to organize and execute folks with iPads knocking on doors in the neighborhoods.
"It was an information operation (like all political campaigns) worthy of anything the
Russians could have developed. It certainly wasn't just a get out the vote campaign. It was
also a suppress/discourage the vote campaign."
They did have a small operation in San Antonio managed by Jared Kushner staffed with Silicon
Valley social media folks put together by Peter Thiel that tested and targeted messaging and were
able to monitor enthusiasm that informed where Trump held his rallies. This enthusiasm differential
led to many more rallies by Trump. But, one can argue this enthusiasm was directly linked to Trump
running an outsider campaign and politically active voters preference for the anti-establishment
candidate. Recall the voter enthusiasm for Obama vs McCain, when Obama ran to change the system
- close Guantanamo, end the wars, etc. Note that Hillary was backed big by the Silicon Valley
establishment - Eric Schmidt & Google as well as Sheryl Sandberg & Facebook among others. Voter
suppression tactics are also not new. Every election we have stories of robocalls and other communication
methods targeting some voters that they can't vote without IDs or their polling station has changed
among ways to suppress votes. Both parties engage in this.
I'm with Jack, that the simplest explanation is that Hillary was an uninspiring candidate.
She couldn't get many Democrats enthused, let alone independent voters in the crucial states in
the mid-west where the election was decided.
IMO, the character of the election would have been very different if the Democrats had
nominated Sanders. He had the enthusiasm factor on his side and a similar message against free
trade and useless wars that would have competed well with Trump in the mid-west. Remember that
Sanders defeated Hillary in the Michigan primary.
The crux of the issue is that the Democrat establishment don't want to accept responsibility
that they are Borgist to the core and will do everything to prevent a real outsider from getting
their party nomination. At best they'll nominate a faux outsider like Obama.
A few questions not necessarily in logical order:
Did the RNC support Trump without qualification during the election cycle in the USA? Do
they do so now?
Do you think it was the Russians or a disgruntled Sanders supporter who supplied the DNC
correspondence to Wikileaks?
Who killed that fellow? SMERSH?
Did Ms. Clinton violate security rules by using unprotected servers?
Do you consider Salon.com a reliable source? Does their reporting of the Syria story stand
up to scrutiny?
I am willing to bet that what we are observing is a BORG operation-not a Russian one. Let
us pick reasonable stakes/time-frame and we can shake on it.
Thanks goodness no Democrats got involved with the Russians, well other than by giving half-million
dollar speeches. Perhaps it was another state actor, like Pakistan, who penetrated them. Maybe
they were pissed off their guest, Osama, got knocked of by BHO while you know who was SOS. "f
you prick us do we not bleed?
,.And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"
Now one has to wonder why the words "hacking" or "bleach bit" weren't used by either party
in the video provided by wsb radio?
"Once the FBI was on them, they couldn't fight back." You mean they couldn't have their spouse
sit down to chat about the grandchildren with the Attorney General?
As to micro-targeting of voters, that has been around a long time. The first exposure I had
to the idea was Tom Loftus' book "The Art of Legislative Politics". The electronic era was well
represented by Mark Grebner:
I see no reason the RNC would have to go to Guccifer2 or Russians for the data. All of that
is readily available from certain vendors in the US. These vendors seem to me to be fairly unscrupulous
and highly profit oriented. They'd sell their own mother for a few bucks, IMO.
Even if the companies refused to sell DNC specific data to the RNC, these companies are
populated with highly skilled, but hungry, tech workers from India and Pakistan that have access
to probably just about everything (I know because I have hired some of these guys fresh off these
projects myself and I like talking to them about their experience, especially after getting a
few drinks into them). Some of them would steal and sell data and reports. Guccifer2 seems totally
unnecessary.
But mostly it's all available from the vendors themselves.
Fred -> Eric Newhill
,
Of course they wouldn't need a hacker for voter data. The point you miss is that the RNC was
supporting whom prior to Trump? Cruz, Rubio, Kaisich and the rest; not least being the great Jeb!
Bush - I think he blew through $130,000,000 before becoming loser # twelve.
The RNC establishment
dislikes Trump almost as much as the Democrats.
Eric Newhill -> Fred
,
Good point. I don't see where any of these people are saying they did it on Trump's behalf.
I begin to think that Guccifer2 in a US person. I begin to think that this is all a US operation.
I will sorely disappointed if Trump doesn't clean these people up and out. Maybe even one car
accidents are in order for some of them.
The suggestion that 'Guccifer 2.0' was linked to Russian intelligence originally came from
'CrowdStrike' and
Dmitri Alperovitch
.
One can think of few better reasons for suspecting that – whatever his nationality – he was part
of a Western-orchestrated 'information operation'.
On the credentials of 'CrowdStrike' and Alperovitch, and the corruption of the cybersecurity
industry, see a piece posted on 8 May by Jeffrey Carr entitled 'Cyber Intelligence and the Imaginary
Other'. In general, Edward Luttwak is not a favourite person of mine, but the remarks Carr quotes
from him about the very serious dangers of dealing with other countries on the basis of what you
want to believe are to the point
.
When you have a situation where people like Alperovitch can make very large sums of money
by telling people what they want to hear, this makes it all too easy for people in positions of
power and influence to lock themselves in a bubble.
As Carr argues – assembling a mass of supporting evidence:
'Crowdstrike's "Danger Close: Fancy Bear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units" is
a perfect example of performing cyber attribution with zero ground truth and, as Luttwak described,
creating an imaginary "other" rather than making the effort to actually speak with people who
know the facts on the ground.
'
After 'CrowdStrike' made the initial link to the FSB and more particularly the GRU, the suggestion
was made that the identification of the initials of Dzerzhinsky in the material from 'Guccifer
2.0' pointed unambiguously to a Russian origin. So according to Thomas Rid, of King's College,
London:
'The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified
using Russian language settings, by a user named "Феликс Эдмундович," a code name referring to
the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front
of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times.
In a piece entitled 'Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach RunawayTrain?', Carr treated the suggestion
with the contempt it – amply – deserves: 'OK. Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer
would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the
world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor.'
For another good account of the history, including a recollection of Alperovitch as a bit-part-player
in the campaign to suggest a massive Russian cyber-offensive against Georgia at the time of the
2008 war, see a piece posted in March by Yasha Levine, entitled 'From Russia, with Panic', at
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/from-russia-with-panic-levine
.nt.
I remember the stories about the Clintons being deeply involved with the Chinese during the
Clinton administration. That was treasonous and scandalous at the time. And Big Grandma was supposed
to be bought and paid for by the Saudis just last year. The DNC purposefully built a notably undemocratic
primary process with a superdelegate system to guarantee the primacy of the smoke filled back
room. They did that because they admired the past orderliness of the RNC process. What an unmitigated
disaster that turned out to be. All this sordidness cannot be used to justify RNC and Trump team
sordidness. Sunlight purifies all, although all those in power seem to abhor the sunlight like
Nosferatu.
Back in 2008 one of Obama's intellectual mentors, the husband of Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein,
was arguing that there should be agents provocateur in the election process:
Apparently the New Hope and Change world order was going to be perpetual. It seems we know
where the "Resistance" gets it's intellectual foundations.
" Sunlight purifies all
," I would sure like to see some of that in action.
different clue -> Fred
,
Well . . . that's what this Bitter Berner lawsuit hopes to achieve. Also, they hope to get
the Court to FORCE the DNC to give back all the donations-money it raised from Hopeful Berners
under the false pretense of holding a fair and balanced Primary.
If the Bitter Berners can win their suit, and win every appeal, the DNC may be hazzing a sad
biggly.
Parry compares worrying about such things to vintage-1960 comedies and satires:
One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle cartoons, disguised as
photographers slipping listening devices between the cushions of the sofas.
Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to "impurify all of our precious bodily
fluids," as "Dr. Strangelove" character, Gen. Jack D. Ripper,
warned us in the 1964 movie.
I am willing to believe that the USG/MSM stories about, say, the supposed chemical weapon attack
in Syria are spin to promote the interests of Israel, but I am not willing to dismiss very proper
concerns about Russian intelligence efforts. For those totally naďve about such things, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
Why would Parry dismiss such concerns? That part of his article is clearly consistent with
known Russian interests.
Sharac
,
It just might be that they considered this a "petty" matter not worth some extra hassle as
they've probably assumed that everyone on Trumps team will be monitored and main locations such
as Trump tower definitely not secured (aka "bugged from basement to the roof"). Also what better
for Russia than US having non shooting civil war (with sad prospect of it becoming shooting if
libtards continue with their nonsense) and much of its assets looking internally.
Good thing coming from all that is that at least 60-70% of decent Americans whom still
trusted the system will see that political system is completely broken and that change through
political means is impossible.
Colonel, isn't there another possibility: the information was obtained via a bug placed inside
Trump Tower, thereby allowing someone to listen in on that conversation between Kushner, Flynn
and Kislyak? The leak of that information could then be used to embarrass Team Trump, and the
"news" about the information being obtained from decrypted Russian communications may simply be
a cover story intended to disguise the illegal method used to obtain it.
After all, which is more difficult: a) decrypting secure diplomatic communications b) sneaking
into Trump Tower and planting a bug
I am on my way out for a while, anyway. Which means too, I followed matters more superficially
for a couple of days already. My excuses to everyone involved.
*******
Fact is, I was close to dropping my response to b, but then I stumbled across this in your
response: "As for Maskirovka, what advantage would the Russians see in inventing a story like
this? pl "
some of you are wasting time here by making up the most outlandish theories imaginable.
No 'outlandish theories' involved beyond wanting to understand what b meant, really. Besides,
you can go back and check my comment during the election campaign around here, I was never a fan
of "Russia-gate" as it surfaced already then. If I understand your anger at all
,
******
Looked at very, very superficially the most recent story in the series seems to be a variation
of Clinton's private server theme. Yes, no doubt for the nitwit, non-expert on matters. Not a
theorist, by the way. Nitwit watcher only. But interested in narratives.
But: How can I put this well and short enough
a) Clinton's private server endangered at least the whatever level of secret content sent that
way. If its main reason wasn't to hide almost everything else?
b) Jared Kustner,
allegedly
went even one step further, by intending to deliver information
in a setting that wouldn't even leave a trace (or need a shredder after - the public wouldn't
even know). In other words, he seemingly wanted to make sure no one could watch or check.
Room full of mirrors?
Cold War Zoomie
,
Lots of people can read lots of reports. But who gets briefed? Hmmmm.
Yeah, Right
,
But consider this: if somebody bugged Trump Tower then they will know two things with
certainty:
1) What Was Said between Kushner and Kizlyak
2) Kizlyak will report to Moscow on What Was Said.
Those buggers don't need to decrypt (or even intercept) any communication between Kizlyak
and Moscow, they need only assume that Kizlyak will faithfully do his job in order to deduce that
such a communication would be sent.
So their bugging of that room in Trump Tower is a twofer:
1) they can leak the conversation to embarrass Trump
2) they can embarrass the Russians by insinuating that their encrypted communications system
is compromised.
"A US government entity that desired to bug Trump Tower would require a FISA or other court
warrant to do a "black bag job" legally"
Agreed, if they wanted to do this legally. I believe that Richard Nixon never asked for a court warrant to break into the Watergate Tower.
But in that case absence of evidence turned out not to be evidence of absence - he simply did
it anyway, and hang the legal niceties.
So, your theory is that the Obama Administration ordered an illegal surreptitious physical
bugging of Trump Tower in order to know what the Trumpies were talking about. Well, that is what
Trump claims as well . pl
No, I didn't say that. I said that I agreed that any "black bag job" on Trump Tower done under
the authorization of a FISA or other court warrant would be legal.What I pointed out (correctly)
is that the absence of such a FISA warrant doesn't not mean that Trump Tower has not been bugged,
and I brought up the instance of Tricky Dickie's plumbers to illustrate that point.
This is my theory: there is no reason to believe the claim that this intel was obtained by
decrypting the communications between Moscow and its ambassador in Washington.
There is good reason to doubt that claim i.e. if it were true then this would itself constitute
a major breach of "sources and methods". So my theory is that this part of the story is false, in which case the intel had to have be
obtained in some other manner. As in: someone had a bug in that room. I'm not saying that Obama ordered such a bugging. I'm
not saying that the US IC put such a bug in there. All I'm suggesting is that the source of this intel was a bug in that room, and it went from
there to WaPo via Person Or Persons Unknown.
As a former DIO for the ME and S Asia and SSO det. commander long ago I assure you that some
SIGINT reports are disseminated in "raw" form to recipients who are not analysts. pl
Thanks for the clarification. That's a side of "production" I didn't know, as usual. Back to
minding the cogs in the machine.
TV
,
And the FBI: looking into Trump-Russia for 10 months, nothing to show for it and meanwhile
the torrential disclosure of really sensitive secrets continues unabated. Federal Bureau of Incompetence.
As I wrote, IMO it is more likely to be political appointees from the BHO world who are still
in government who are doing the leaking. They have just as much access depending on their job.
Think Evelyn Farkas and her like. pl
I know that you don't know, but the lack of action by the responsible officials is worsening this
whole mess. Politicians (Sessions, Pompeo) -- talkers not doers.
And Trump??? Instead of kicking these guys asses to fix it, he's tweeting and throwing tantrums.
"... Former CIA officer Mike Baker said on "Your World" that the leakers in the White House and intelligence agencies will only stop "if there are consequences." Baker said that those who had access to the leaked sensitive material must be "hauled in" and talked to very directly about their activities, and in some cases polygraphed. ..."
"... Leaks from the White House have been copious lately, causing headaches for President Trump and his staff. "When you continue to lower the bar and you continue to normalize the idea that, you know, people can't keep their pie holes shut, and it's okay because there's ultimately no consequences, then sure, you create this environment where suddenly you have news articles that contain only anonymous sources," Baker said. ..."
Former CIA officer Mike Baker said on "Your World" that the leakers in the White House and
intelligence agencies will only stop "if there are consequences." Baker said that those who had access
to the leaked sensitive material must be "hauled in" and talked to very directly about their activities,
and in some cases polygraphed.
The New York Times published a report yesterday on the terror attack in Manchester that contained
sensitive, detailed information on the investigation into the horrific bombing. While the information
may have come from Britain, Baker said that the Times may also have knowingly disrupted an ongoing
terrorist investigation in hopes of taking another shot at the Trump administration.
"It's a possibility," Baker told host Neil Cavuto.
Leaks from the White House have been copious lately, causing headaches for President Trump
and his staff. "When you continue to lower the bar and you continue to normalize the idea that, you
know, people can't keep their pie holes shut, and it's okay because there's ultimately no consequences,
then sure, you create this environment where suddenly you have news articles that contain only anonymous
sources," Baker said.
The initial hypnosis of Philip Giraldi that Russian diplomatic communications are compromised is
logical, but at the same time pretty weak.
More probably the intersection occurred in Trump tower which was "bugged". Or this is a fake injected
to harm Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... It is generally believed, correctly, that the NSA intercepts nearly all diplomatic communications originating from embassies in Washington, which is not to say that it is always successful at decrypting them. Decryption requires an enormous expenditure of time, money, and effort. ..."
"... Now that the Russians know that their communications are not secure, they will take necessary steps to tighten up their procedures and protocols, which means that the United States government will no longer be able to read their message traffic and will start all over with having to break into the new system. This reality will be enormously costly both to Russia and the U.S., and it will mean that a major intelligence advantage that Washington possessed will no longer be viable. ..."
"... However one feels about the paranoid and reactionary post-9/11 level of global spying carried out by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, being able to read an adversary's mail provides a huge advantage if one wants to avoid surprises and mitigate factors that could result in unnecessary conflict. ..."
"... And, to be completely fair, it also gives one an advantage if you are planning on mischief yourself and want to know how an opponent will react. Either way, that ability would have been one of the crown jewels of the intelligence community-and losing that advantage over Russia is an enormous, self-inflicted intelligence failure. Yet the media has chosen to ignore that real disaster because they want the story to be Kushner and Trump, not the leaker who has done tremendous damage to the nation's intelligence collection capability. ..."
"... But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages." Well, *maybe*. There are, of course, a number of alternative possibilities. ..."
"... Let's face it: the only information we have access to must come from one of several highly untrustworthy sources. None of these sources consider providing the truth to the American public to be central to their mission. ..."
"... The very countries Washington should be cultivating, not demonizing. But this kind of irrational behaviour is to be expected of an empire in irreversible decline. Sad. ..."
So it is likely that the Kushner story will become just another part of the endless special counsel
investigation into the Trump administration's alleged Russian links. Yet the real story should be
the "leak" that revealed the details of the Kushner proposal. The leaker, whoever he was, provided
highly classified and very restricted access information to the media; it indicated that the Kushner
discussions with the Russians took place in Trump Tower and that a report on the proposal was then
relayed back to Moscow using Russian diplomatic communications, which were intercepted, decrypted,
and retained by the National Security Agency (NSA).
It is generally believed, correctly, that the NSA intercepts nearly all diplomatic communications
originating from embassies in Washington, which is not to say that it is always successful at decrypting
them. Decryption requires an enormous expenditure of time, money, and effort. It is almost always
limited to communications of countries that are considered to be adversaries-which these days would
include Russia, China, and Iran-or potential sources of information on transnational issues like
terrorism or drug trafficking. And even when there is a major effort, the attempt to crack the encryption
sometimes fails, particularly when one is dealing with a sophisticated opponent.
It is clear from the Kushner leaker's tale that the Russians were confident that their diplomatic
communications were secure. But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages.
Now that the Russians know that their communications are not secure, they will take necessary steps
to tighten up their procedures and protocols, which means that the United States government will
no longer be able to read their message traffic and will start all over with having to break into
the new system. This reality will be enormously costly both to Russia and the U.S., and it will mean
that a major intelligence advantage that Washington possessed will no longer be viable.
However one feels about the paranoid and reactionary post-9/11 level of global spying carried
out by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, being able to read an adversary's mail provides
a huge advantage if one wants to avoid surprises and mitigate factors that could result in unnecessary
conflict.
And, to be completely fair, it also gives one an advantage if you are planning on mischief
yourself and want to know how an opponent will react. Either way, that ability would have been one
of the crown jewels of the intelligence community-and losing that advantage over Russia is an enormous,
self-inflicted intelligence failure. Yet the media has chosen to ignore that real disaster because
they want the story to be Kushner and Trump, not the leaker who has done tremendous damage to the
nation's intelligence collection capability.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Howard, May 29, 2017 at 12:43 pm
"But the NSA had actually broken them and was reading their messages." Well, *maybe*.
There are, of course, a number of alternative possibilities. The information might be
intercepted BEFORE it is encrypted, either through technological means or because the Russians
have a leak of their own. Or it could be that the alleged NSA discoveries are in fact
plausible inventions.
Let's face it: the only information we have access to must come from one of several
highly untrustworthy sources. None of these sources consider providing the truth to the
American public to be central to their mission. The best we can do is to create Just-So
stories that seem to fit the claims made by these untrustworthy sources.
Lefty, May 29, 2017 at 1:14 pm
Mr. Giraldi,
Your thread unravels if it was the Russians who leaked the intelligence. After all, as an
operation to discredit the president and his chief advisor, it was flawless.
In this reading Jared stepped into the trap neatly set for him. He provided the powder and the
fuse, leaving it to the Russians to light it off when they pleased.
And I guess this doesn't make Flynn's failure to protect Jared and his extensive contacts with
the Russians look any better.
Hanna Khayyat, May 29, 2017 at 1:25 pm
Call the plumbers at once!
delia ruhe, May 29, 2017 at 3:24 pm
" countries that are considered to be [US] adversaries-which these days would include
Russia, China, and Iran "
The very countries Washington should be cultivating, not demonizing. But this kind of
irrational behaviour is to be expected of an empire in irreversible decline. Sad.
"... Former federal agent Dan Bongino said a new report from sources in the Trump administration is the latest in the press' mission to "take down the president." "The Washington Post" reported that top adviser Jared Kushner tried to set up "back-channel" communications with Russian officials. ..."
"... "Is that a federal crime?" he asked incredulously. "This is really disturbing." Bongino said left-leaning media outlets like the Post and the "New York Times" are engaged in an "evidence-free investigation that is simply determined to take down the president." He said White House leaks must stop and that the entire Trump-Russia probe will be a "stain on the nation." ..."
Former federal agent Dan Bongino said a new report from sources in the Trump
administration is the latest in the press' mission to "take down the president." "The Washington
Post" reported that top adviser Jared Kushner tried to set up "back-channel" communications with
Russian officials.
Bongino, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in the Maryland panhandle, said he similarly bought
a burner phone to create a "back-channel" with his campaign manager.
"Is that a federal crime?" he asked incredulously. "This is really disturbing." Bongino
said left-leaning media outlets like the Post and the "New York Times" are engaged in an
"evidence-free investigation that is simply determined to take down the president."
He said White House leaks must stop and that the entire Trump-Russia probe will be a "stain on
the nation."
Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached,
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.
Green said,
"This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live
in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.
When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was
investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you
couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he
went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have,
when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable
offense."
"... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
"... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
"... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Conservative Review ..."
"... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
"... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
"... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
"... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
"... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
"... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is
supposed to have said,
then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.
Thus the Ruling Class's
Trayvon Martin ,
Ferguson
and
Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated
Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite
its black clients against the white American majority.
It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump
was
always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate
votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could
be guilted into capitulation,
like Richard Nixon,
unlike Bill
Clinton ).
The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical
proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system
- and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to
bureaucrats and
kritarchs
.
Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four
words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared
in his recent columns,
here and
here
and
here .
... ... ...
Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969,
now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything
yet seen under Trump:
Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of
thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major
media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting
out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the
Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as
well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It
is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon
Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7.
"The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."
This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled
neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point,
although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized
by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.
Contrary to his current
Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding
his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.
... ... ...
Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked
a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend,"
says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "
... ... ...
Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the
office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.
.... ... ...
What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight
on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally,
the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration,
which out-of-control Leftist
judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution.
Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic
American Nation is inextricable from his own.
Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal
year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate
rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction
of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been
passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.
In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the
filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the
issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The
president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals
for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address
from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding
action from Congress to deal with the courts.
Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and
continuing every major Obama policy.
He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible
ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign
at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.
Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying
and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys
were hard to find anywhere.
President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases
near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World
War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.
This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding,
and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required.
Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm
Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een
breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.
The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer.
Translation:
That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with
all that post WWII USA has as values.
Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with
EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.
European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer
supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor.
Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do
not see the need for high military expenses.
The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing.
It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out
soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those
who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.
My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was
an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump
really needs to come out swinging.
I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold
Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was
a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born
White American Extermination Act.
Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.
Scratch
a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.
All evidence
points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US
civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.
Evidence
is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by
an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a
bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living
i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared
and so will the ragtag American empire.
"... Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still classified. ..."
JFK had back-channels to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why? He didn't trust the
CIA
Then he was shot.
Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep
State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before
he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still
classified.
"... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
"... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
"... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
"... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
"... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can
do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
"One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election"
That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create
"dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.
that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other
sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of
the national news media."
There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises
they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money
(or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want
to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money
(votes) he runs away from what he promised.
That (short) con works in real estate where he really
don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with
the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will
realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.
But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters
realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a
stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.
"But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize
that they have been conned."
Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)
"That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people
after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place,
so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't
try to do a new trick."
But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that
fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.
I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.
"It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"
Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives
followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.
Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique
is really biting.
Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still
have illusions about Trump.
IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal
media and this set of well coordinated leaks.
@3
Why are you ignoring the idea that Trump is stupid and genuinely didn't understand the impact sacking Comey would have on his reputation,
such as it is?
From OP
'A total Trump legal implosion would be bad for Republicans generally.'
Well short term, but can Trump's demise really be worse than Nixon's? (Perhaps it can, but seems unlikely at the moment). And
Nixon's political demise seemed to be a bad thing for the Republicans, and for a short time, it was. But Nixon was 'the last liberal',
a Keynesian who founded the EPA. Removing him enabled the Republicans to purge their party of the last 'moderate Republicans' and
move hard to the right, and with the Reagan counter-revolution they shifted American politics to the extreme right, where it has
remained ever since.
'It's hard to imagine Mueller isn't going to find something that Trump really really doesn't want him to find'.
Mueller will find out that, like all wealthy American capitalists, without exception, Trump is a sleazebag and a scumbag who played
fast and loose with the law (crony capitalism is the only kind of capitalism there is, or has ever been). Trump probably has links
with unpleasant Russian oligarchs, not because they are Russian, but because they are oligarchs. Will that be enough to hang Trump?
Depends on how much the Republicans want President Pence. A lot, would be my guess. So yes Trump is probably doomed, but maybe in
his second term (if he has one) not his first. Will he go peacefully or accept defeat like Nixon? Not a chance. Remember Trump has
the army and the armed police force on his side. When states fracture that counts for a lot more than the Democrats' de facto control
of the media.
'One might be afraid that Trump would start a war to distract the public's attention, as Clinton did, but he's already done
that so what else is new?'
I suspect, he means in this situation. The rule of law, for the United States government, generally translates as something rather
different from what it means for the rest of us. And institutional damage to the United States government is probably a good thing
for the rest of the world, and arguably a good thing for U.S. citizens in general.
I suspect Trump will in a matter of months pardon Flynn for any and all crimes he may have committed. If as it seems the most
obvious and egregious wrongdoing can be attributed to Flynn, and much of the ensuing cover-up activity has centered around that,
it is the simplest way to end the investigation without any negative legal result for Trump.
Trump's people can claim they didn't know what Flynn was up to, and even though there's plenty of evidence they did know, we've
learned that lying to the public (as e.g. Pence has clearly done) isn't actually a crime, so they will survive relatively unscathed.
"With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there
was never a special council appointed!" Trump tweeted, after an unusually quiet 24 hours online.
He added in a second tweet: "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American
history!"
The reason I voted the way I did is that I think Military Intelligence played a greater role in deposing
Nixon than did the CIA Washington, D.C. police detective Carl Shoffler who arrested the burglars
was a Military Intelligence agent assigned to the D.C. police department. He had prior knowledge
of the planned break-in at Watergate on June 17, 1972.
Howard Hunt was a CIA agent and at least two of the arrested burglars had long-standing connections
to the CIA The CIA hierarchy was well aware of Hunt's activities prior to the arrests at Watergate.
The CIA was drastically and negatively affected by the fallout of the Watergate scandal while the
Military escaped basically unscathed.
The dictionary defines "depose" as: to remove from high office." I believe the Watergate break-in
operation was primarily a CIA operation. I do not believe its intent was to remove President Nixon
from the presidency. I do believe Shoffler's intent was to remove Nixon from office and that he had
shared his prior knowledge of the planned break-in with his superiors in the Military and that a
decision adverse to Nixon had been reached.
Thanks for voting. I have not studied the boundaries or links between military intelligence and
the CIA as regards Watergate, and at times I use the term CIA to refer to the entire intelligence
complex. Particularly when dealing with unofficial, off the books operations, a lot of operations
are done by an informal network of current/former military/intelligence people who move around within
organizations. I consider George HW Bush to be a senior if not THE senior person in the CIA watergate
hierarchy; however, Bush was most likely not a CIA employee during the Nixon years; however, he remained
part of unofficial CIA old-boys network which really ran things.
I have a hard time understanding the boundaries and linkages between the CIA, DIA, ONI and other
military intelligence agencies. At times they seem to act in unison, and at other times, they are
somewhat independent.
It seems like you agree that Nixon was deposed by the intelligence complex. Can you suggest a
better phrasing of the question which might better include your viewpoint?? And what are some other
Military Intelligence links to Watergate?
On 3/14/2013 at 5:05 PM, Mark Gorton said: Douglas,
Thanks for voting. I have not studied the boundaries or links between military intelligence
and the CIA as regards Watergate, and at times I use the term CIA to refer to the entire intelligence
complex. Particularly when dealing with unofficial, off the books operations, a lot of operations
are done by an informal network of current/former military/intelligence people who move around
within organizations. I consider George HW Bush to be a senior if not THE senior person in the
CIA watergate hierarchy; however, Bush was most likely not a CIA employee during the Nixon years;
however, he remained part of unofficial CIA old-boys network which really ran things.
I have a hard time understanding the boundaries and linkages between the CIA, DIA, ONI and
other military intelligence agencies. At times they seem to act in unison, and at other times,
they are somewhat independent.
It seems like you agree that Nixon was deposed by the intelligence complex. Can you suggest
a better phrasing of the question which might better include your viewpoint?? And what are some
other Military Intelligence links to Watergate?
Best Regards,
Mark
This is a complex issue.
Both the CIA and Military Intelligence had separate secret operations inside the White House that
essentially monitored everything Nixon said or did.
The Watergate break-in was a CIA operation. However, Military Intelligence possessed prior knowledge
of the planned break-in. This was because Carl Shoffler, the D.C. detective who arrested the burglars
at Watergate, was a Military Intelligence agent assigned to the D.C. police. He had learned of the
planned break-in weeks before it took place.
The CIA had its own file on the role of Military Intelligence inside the White House and in Watergate.
Military Intelligence undertook an operation to steal this key CIA file that was successful.
This prevented the real role of Military Intelligence in Nixon being deposed from ever becoming
part of the public record.
"... Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them? Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests. ..."
"... For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning. And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." ..."
"... With the Russian spin, the so-called liberal establishment landed an unprecedented coup. It was made up by the Dems and the Obama in the background, to tie President Trump's hand and bring him in the confrontation with the Russians. The US "Deep State" needs a bogeyman to enrich themselves by producing weapons. ..."
"... One is surprised that the Trump Administration allows playing a cat-and-mouse game with it. They should crack down on the FBI internal structure and get after the leaks. Trump should be as merciless as Obama was with the whistleblowers. Perhaps he should be even harder because all of the people had top security clearance. That means, they committed a felony. ..."
"... I think the Seth Rich story needs to be fully investigated, and, even if the Kim Dotcom story was phony, the Rich thing looks real if based only on the reaction to it by the power structure. ..."
Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS
was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners?
Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and
splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.
President Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with
the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.
On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.
Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist.
That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.
But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in
the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen
is duty bound to protect?
The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the
intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing
a felony by leaking that secret.
Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt
Trump, sees themselves as the "Resistance" - like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.
And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.
"Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?" asked the headline on the editorial in The New
York Times.
One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?
In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years
on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war
that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.
Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander
in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.
When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of the Pentagon Papers until we could
review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated
for failing to understand the First Amendment.
And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the
Times won a Pulitzer.
Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer - for Watergate. The indispensable source of its
stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by
leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.
Felt, "Deep Throat," was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary
had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and
to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent,
the Post kept Felt's identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
Which brings us to the point.
The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable
officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.
Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them? Because
this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests. The media get the stolen
goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their
identities protected. This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.
For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media
are soaring. The "failing New York Times" has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.
And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra
scandal that was wounding President Reagan, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South,
and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing
by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.
When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the
FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto
felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.
Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal
security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel
community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the
Trump presidency before it began.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
If the Americans let the deep state bamboozle them into removing Trump, they don't deserve
to have not only a democracy, but a country as well. Who in their right mind would believe that
Trump is in cahoots with the Russians? Maybe decades of (successful even if poorly constructed)
propaganda has lowered the threshold of creativity needed in order for a lie to pass as truth,
but this is going beyond the limits of tolerance. Not even a 5th grader would buy into this nonsense.
The deep state is damaging the reputation of US in the world by trying to get away with such poorly
constructed fabrications. This is an insult to all Americans. The deep state should be forced
at least to come up with something more intelligent if they want to accomplish what they are aiming
for – removal of Trump.
When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside
the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de
facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.
Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal
security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the
intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage
the Trump presidency before it began.
And now that it is becoming impossible to avoid the conclusion that Seth Rich was murdered
for sharing over 44,000 DNC e-mails with Wikileaks (the leaks stopped when Rich died), should
the office proposed by Mr Buchanan also investigate the strong possibility that the "Russian hacking"
fake news story has been a deliberate, traitorous attempt to undermine a legitimately elected
president of of the United States of America?
The conspiracy against a just elected US president by his predecessor, the Democratic Party,
the so-called liberal media and large parts of the GOP is unprecedented in American history. The
media prostitutes publish stories based on anonymous sources, and everybody takes them for the
truth. On can call such report unfounded rumors. Nobody should take them seriously.
With the Russian spin, the so-called liberal establishment landed an unprecedented coup.
It was made up by the Dems and the Obama in the background, to tie President Trump's hand and
bring him in the confrontation with the Russians. The US "Deep State" needs a bogeyman to enrich
themselves by producing weapons.
One is surprised that the Trump Administration allows playing a cat-and-mouse game with
it. They should crack down on the FBI internal structure and get after the leaks. Trump should
be as merciless as Obama was with the whistleblowers. Perhaps he should be even harder because
all of the people had top security clearance. That means, they committed a felony.
Like Pat said last week, Trump needs to start going on offense. If Trump thinks he can charm
the deep state by not hitting back at them then he's the wrong guy for the job.
But if and when Trump ever goes after Susan Rice and Hussein O then Mad Maxine WaWa, the DNC
and the media predictably will accuse him of racism. But it wasn't racist for two black government
officials to illegally wiretap Trump and his associates or decrypt their communications.
"When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside
the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de
facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation."
I get the impression he just doesn't know he can do this. His advisors apparently do not either.
He does not have a good understanding of the powers of his office, how to leverage it and thus
cannot "execute". He has not been able to identify "a move" that will neutralize at least some
key enemies, make the others pause and give him some initiative. Buchanan's advise sounds good,
but there's a window of opportunity for these things.
And I cannot forget the delay of the TV stations in calling the election on the night of nov
8, and how when he came out his words were "complicated business, folks", and de facto exonerated
Hillary Clinton. Some "understanding" was brokered there, and the measure of the man taken.
Buchanan has it right again. The whole special counsel thing is another deep state initiative
to eliminate Trump, as are the continual leaks. I'm also afraid that the cynical manoevrings with
the Saudis is, in large part, an effort by Trump to show he can be part of the imperialist team
after all despite his earlier statements critical of Saudi-financed jihadi type thugs.
But this is a futile effort. The structure will never be satisfied until they have a pliable
tool of their imperialist anti-Russian pro-Jihadi line running the show. Mike Whitney has accurately
described this Rosenstein-Mueller effort in his most recent counterpunch piece (not here yet but
probably to appear later today on Unz.)
The early comments on this are great. I agree with English Mike's prescription of an office
to link the disloyal activities of the leakers with facts necessary to prove the Seth Rich murder
and its links to the wikileaks incident. I agree with the others who indicate that a stronger
line must be taken with those who, in light of the indications of the Rich story which totally
debunks the Russian conspiracy theory, that the situation here indicates that the power structure
is engaged on full-on treason and sedition. The success of this treason would mean the final burial
of the rule of law in the US and its replacement with an imperial system totally bent on absolute
domination of everywhere even if the imposition of such a system requires nuclear armageddon.
@exiled off mainstreet Buchanan has it right again. The whole special counsel thing is another
deep state initiative to eliminate Trump, as are the continual leaks. I'm also afraid that the
cynical manoevrings with the Saudis is, in large part, an effort by Trump to show he can be part
of the imperialist team after all despite his earlier statements critical of Saudi-financed jihadi
type thugs.
But this is a futile effort. The structure will never be satisfied until they have a pliable tool
of their imperialist anti-Russian pro-Jihadi line running the show. Mike Whitney has accurately
described this Rosenstein-Mueller effort in his most recent counterpunch piece (not here yet but
probably to appear later today on Unz.)
The early comments on this are great. I agree with English Mike's prescription of an office to
link the disloyal activities of the leakers with facts necessary to prove the Seth Rich murder
and its links to the wikileaks incident. I agree with the others who indicate that a stronger
line must be taken with those who, in light of the indications of the Rich story which totally
debunks the Russian conspiracy theory, that the situation here indicates that the power structure
is engaged on full-on treason and sedition. The success of this treason would mean the final burial
of the rule of law in the US and its replacement with an imperial system totally bent on absolute
domination of everywhere even if the imposition of such a system requires nuclear armageddon.
@englishmike When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish
an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security
leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.
Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by
normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through
the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to
sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.
And now that it is becoming impossible to avoid the conclusion that Seth Rich was murdered
for sharing over 44,000 DNC e-mails with Wikileaks (the leaks stopped when Rich died), should
the office proposed by Mr Buchanan also investigate the strong possibility that the "Russian hacking"
fake news story has been a deliberate, traitorous attempt to undermine a legitimately elected
president of of the United States of America?
What Trump told Lavrov had ALREADY been printed in US newspapers some months PRIOR . The Russians
can read _ they can even read English! This is what Lavrov responded to question at a media conference:
LAVROV:
We read in your newspapers that the main accusations are centered on the following: allegedly,
secrets were divulged regarding terrorists' ability to put "undetectable" explosives into computers,
laptops, iPads and so on.
If memory serves, maybe one or two months earlier, the Trump administration instituted a laptop
ban for passengers from seven Middle Eastern countries, if I am not mistaken, which was directly
connected to a terrorist threat. So if you are talking about that, I don't see what the secret
is.
Sorry Mr. Buchanan, I sometimes appreciate your contrarian opinions, but you don't help your
case by making some kind of martyr out of Nixon. Maybe he was also bound by laws and an oath of
his own, and lying to his country to prolong a pointless, genocidal, and unwinnable war was not
the way to go about it. If, two generations later, Republicans still cannot take responsibility
for Nixon's blatant criminality, that may explain much of the immaturity currently emanating from
the White House.
Yes, Trump could go on the offensive vs the leakers. And/or, he could reach out to Bernie's
voters, who got shafted by their own party, and explain how the same thing would have happened
to their guy if he'd won. Or, make some space in his cabinet for people who are not Wall-Street/Pentagon
crooks. Or, you know, do *anything* else useful or tell the truth about *anything* .
The evidence is that his passion lies elsewhere. His team's counterattack is focused on Wikileaks,
immigrants, and Iran–parties without power in Washington. Trump's always mostly just been a different
faction of the establishment, and this holds double for the people who funded him. "Locking her
up" would imply a big obligation to do better himself. With Barbie Trump already pocketing Saudi
cash Hillary-style, it seems we can forget about that.
Rosenstein- does he have the power to ask Mueller to look into the allegations ? Who gave them
the power? How does he decide? What is his legal basis to appoint Mueller?
@Ma Laoshi Sorry Mr. Buchanan, I sometimes appreciate your contrarian opinions, but you don't
help your case by making some kind of martyr out of Nixon. Maybe he was also bound by laws and
an oath of his own, and lying to his country to prolong a pointless, genocidal, and unwinnable
war was not the way to go about it. If, two generations later, Republicans still cannot take responsibility
for Nixon's blatant criminality, that may explain much of the immaturity currently emanating from
the White House.
Yes, Trump could go on the offensive vs the leakers. And/or, he could reach out to Bernie's voters,
who got shafted by their own party, and explain how the same thing would have happened to their
guy if he'd won. Or, make some space in his cabinet for people who are not Wall-Street/Pentagon
crooks. Or, you know, do *anything* else useful or tell the truth about *anything*.
The evidence is that his passion lies elsewhere. His team's counterattack is focused on Wikileaks,
immigrants, and Iran--parties without power in Washington. Trump's always mostly just been a different
faction of the establishment, and this holds double for the people who funded him. "Locking her
up" would imply a big obligation to do better himself. With Barbie Trump already pocketing Saudi
cash Hillary-style, it seems we can forget about that.
@exiled off mainstreet While I don't always agree with Buchanan on Nixon, I can remember his
historical role as Nixon's adviser, and Nixon does not look as bad as he looked to me then based
upon what has happened in the last 45 years. His failure was keeping the war going, but his Russian
and Chinese policies were positive, and his domestic policy seems positively leftwing by modern
standards. Unfortunately, Trump has not shown any gratitude towards wikileaks, perhaps as a result
of the campaign against him.
I think the Seth Rich story needs to be fully investigated, and, even if the Kim Dotcom
story was phony, the Rich thing looks real if based only on the reaction to it by the power structure.
@Cyrano If the Americans let the deep state bamboozle them into removing Trump, they don't
deserve to have not only a democracy, but a country as well. Who in their right mind would believe
that Trump is in cahoots with the Russians? Maybe decades of (successful even if poorly constructed)
propaganda has lowered the threshold of creativity needed in order for a lie to pass as truth,
but this is going beyond the limits of tolerance. Not even a 5th grader would buy into this nonsense.
The deep state is damaging the reputation of US in the world by trying to get away with such poorly
constructed fabrications. This is an insult to all Americans. The deep state should be forced
at least to come up with something more intelligent if they want to accomplish what they are aiming
for - removal of Trump.
Vox Day at his "Vox Popoli" site has drawn attention to a powerful piece on Jerry Pournelle's
"Chaos Manor" site about what James Comey has (allegedly) actually been doing at the FBI and how
Trump is (allegedly) very much on the case. Whether or not you are convinced, it is required reading
for anyone following this thread. Here's an excerpt:
If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of
the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being
investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton's personal scandal eraser at the FBI.
BUT TRUMP WON.
The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political outsider
who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a "failsafe" plan is
implemented to ruin Trump's administration and try to force him out of the Presidency. The key
players committed to the plan are the democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the media,
the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire bureaucracy,
and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump with Russian
"connections," through a fake FBI "investigation" and more importantly, to trap him into a charge
of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME TO TAKE DOWN
TRUMP.
@englishmike Vox Day at his "Vox Popoli" site has drawn attention to a powerful piece on Jerry
Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" site about what James Comey has (allegedly) actually been doing at the
FBI and how Trump is (allegedly) very much on the case. Whether or not you are convinced, it is
required reading for anyone following this thread. Here's an excerpt:
If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of
the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being
investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton's personal scandal eraser at the FBI.
BUT TRUMP WON.
The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political
outsider who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a "failsafe"
plan is implemented to ruin Trump's administration and try to force him out of the Presidency.
The key players committed to the plan are the democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the
media, the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire
bureaucracy, and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump
with Russian "connections," through a fake FBI "investigation" and more importantly, to trap him
into a charge of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME
TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP.
The political noose is tightening around Trump's neck, and he's got only one way out: war. The U.S. involvement in the Syrian war
is accelerating as Trump's talons dig deeper into the conflict. If he successfully clutches his prey he stands a chance of clinging
to the presidency.
The Democrats, now circling a wounded Trump, will happily feast instead on a rotting Syria: the only thing that can keep the Democrats
from destroying Trump is if Trump destroys Syria.
Trump's strategy is based on how Democrats reacted after his first attack on the Syrian government onApril 6th: they paused their
toothless "resistance" to celebrate his bombing. Trump, at his most dangerous, exposed the Democrats at their weakest.
Now Trump has struck the Syrian government again: on May 18th U.S. fighter jets attacked the Syrian military in Eastern Syria,
from a new U.S. military base functioning inside Syrian territory controlled by the Syrian Kurds, where there are at least 1,000
U.S. active troops.
Although the U.S. media underplayed Trump's recent attack -- or ignored it completely - legendary U.K. Middle East journalist
Robert Fiskexplained the significance:
" what was described by the Americans as a minor action was part of a far more important struggle between the US and the Syrian
regime for control of the south-eastern frontier of Syria "
Yes, the U.S. is already at war with the Syrian government for control of Syrian territory. The U.S. war on ISIS in Syria
was never about ISIS, but about gaining a foothold directly inside Syria. Many pundits dismissed Trump's initial attack on the Syrian
government as "symbolic," when in fact it began a new war.
The New York Times confirms the motive of Trump's war:
"Two competing coalitions that aim to defeat the Islamic State - one [Kurdish and U.S. fighters] backed by American air power,
the other [the Syrian government] by Russian warplanes - are racing to the same goal."
What is this goal?
" [there is an] urgency among the competing coalitions fighting the Islamic State to be the first in southeast Syria to defeat
the group [ISIS] and to occupy the power vacuum that its defeat would leave .Eastern Syria and the area around Deir al-Zour are
mostly unpopulated desert, but they have Syria's modest oil reserves The area is strategically important to the United States,
which wants to stabilize Iraq where it has a long-term military and political investment, and to Russia, which wants to strengthen
the Syrian government's control of as much territory as possible."
In summary: the U.S. military wants to "occupy" the "power vacuum" left by ISIS, because Syrian territory is "strategically important"
to the United States.
The war isn't about ISIS because the U.S. military isn't needed to defeat ISIS in Syria, since the group was doomed the day that
Turkey decided to close ranks against them - by sealing their border with Syria - instead of openly supporting them as they had for
several years.
Consequently, the Syrian government - with Russian and Iranian support - has no problem mopping up ISIS in Syria, and they're
racing to do it first before the U.S.-Kurdish alliance claims the territory for itself.
Establishment Democrats are cheer-leadingTrump's war goals in private, which is why they're not denouncing them in public. The
Democrat-friendly New York Times published a revealing op-ed entitled"
A Trump Doctrine for the
Middle East ?" In it the writer applauds Trump's war aims:
"Despite the controversies at home, Mr. Trump may come away with a legacy-cementing achievement: a Trump Doctrine for the Middle
East it is false that American 'soft power' is the key to stabilizing the [middle east] region. Our ideals, such as promoting
democracy, will work to our advantage only if we first restore order - a project that rests on American hard power [military intervention].
What's more, the use of force is not inherently counterproductive "
The article explains that Obama's "soft power" (the Syrian proxy war) failed and that Trump aims to "restore order" with "hard
power" (direct military intervention).As Trump's bombs fall heavier Democrats will scramble to support a wider war that, crazily,
increasingly threatens direct confrontation with Russia. The Russian government loudly denounced Trump's most recent bombing against
the Syrian government, and sent more Russian troops to the region in response.
The U.S. war against ISIS in Syria has always been a pretext to undermine the Syrian and Iranian governments. Robert Fisk explains:
"Cutting Syria off from Iraq – and thus from Iran – appears to be a far more immediate operational aim of US forces in Syria
than the elimination of the [ISIS] Sunni 'Caliphate' cult that Washington claims to be its principal enemy in the Middle East."
How might this "race to defeat ISIS" end? Trump's ominous trip to Saudi Arabia gives some insight into the Trump Doctrine. Trump
made an enormous arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $350 billion over 10 years, and wants the Saudis to use the money to co-lead an
"Arab NATO" [military alliance]. Who will this alliance be aimed against? The Trump administration made it known that Iran was the
main target, and thus Syria is the appetizer.
In a separate article Robert Fisk discussed Trump's Saudi visit:
"The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims [the gulf monarchy U.S. allies and others] of the Middle East for
war against the Shia Muslims [Iran, Syria, Hezbollah]. With help from Israel, of course."
This is the real reason Trump prioritized Saudi Arabia as the always-important first stop on his initial trip abroad: Trump is
clearly stating his commitment to the totalitarian monarchies, who main priorities are the destruction of its regional enemies: Yemen,
Syria, and Iran.
This "Arab NATO" is meant to act as a U.S. puppet army in the way that 'official' NATO does in Europe, and the African Union's
"Standby Force" does in Africa, where U.S. allies share the responsibility of repressing neighbor states who defy U.S. interests,
i.e. they refuse to abandon their political-economic self determination.
A U.S.-led "Arab NATO" wasn't previously impossible because the U.S. is universally hated across the Middle East, for its longstanding
alliance with Israel combined with its recent annihilation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The openness in which the Gulf monarchies
are trying to form this alliance shows just how distanced from and hated by their own residents, who are prevented from expressing
their hatred through elections or public protest.
The Trump-led alliance is especially foreboding because U.S. allies in the region feel deeply betrayed by Obama's Middle East
approach; they want concrete assurances the betrayal won't be repeated, since U.S. allies risked a lot in regime change in Syria
after Obama ensured them that regime change would be a safe bet. Trump's visit means, in practice, a fresh commitment to Assad's
downfall and renewed hostilities with Iran, nuclear deal be damned.
Trump's current war strategy in Syria is similar to President Bush Sr.'s experiment in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War: he used a
no-fly zone in Kurdish-majority northern Iraq that de-facto partitioned the country, allowing the Kurds to take power where they
remain in power today, as an important U.S. puppet. The partitioning of Iraq helped weaken the country prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.
The Syrian Kurds are now being armed with U.S. weaponry and given similar promises as their Iraqi counterparts received, but the
Syrian Kurds are rightfully nervous about their new alliance.
In their desperate fight against ISIS the Kurds have accepted an alliance with the world's military superpower: the Kurdish homeland
is infested with rats and they invited a tiger to deal with the problem; but once the rats are dead the tiger will stay hungry. The
Kurds also live next to another starving Tiger, the Turkish Government.
The history of the Kurds is one of constant betrayals by larger powers. And now they are
pleading on the pages of The New York Times not to be betrayed again, since they see the writing on the wall:
" [President Trump] give us your word that evenafter Raqqa's liberation [in Syria] you will prevent attempts by Turkey to destroy
what we've built here."
Of course Trump's "word" is meaningless (and even this he won't give publicly). The Kurds are being used as battlefield pawns
in a greater game. As Trump aligns with the Kurds in Syria, he simultaneously calls the Turkish Kurds "terrorists," even though the
Turkish and Syrian Kurds are closely aligned ideologically and militarily.
Like all "boots on the ground," the Kurds are most useful to the U.S. as cannon fodder, while more powerful people profit from
the fighting. The political power of the Kurds pales in comparison to their enemy Turkey, whose government has long-term interests
(the destruction of the Kurds) that will outlast the short-term military objectives Trump.
The above contradictions are sharpening across the Middle East, nearing the point of yet another explosion. The Trump Doctrine
is a flamethrower at a gas station that can instantly spark an even greater conflagration, beyond the horrors we've already witnessed
across the Middle East. If the Trump resistance movement in the United States doesn't quickly prioritize a real anti war strategy,
there will be little resistance left to speak of as we descend into war.
"... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
"... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
"... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
The witches in Macbeth.
President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides.
The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are
baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against
Trump.
One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military
coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'
As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has
been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.
One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly
Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And
when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.
Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by
appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated.
But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy
for others.
Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy
financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn
was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.
But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf
emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs
to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?
The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat
the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence,
end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers,
cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals
for a living.
No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears
in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'
That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos
of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of
Trump that are beginning.
Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria,
and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the
president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual
Arabs!
' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant
and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now.
Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting
to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business
like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?
This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is
no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder.
Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.
Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest
about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates
got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside
of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place
precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President.
Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their
own.
So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for
most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated
election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy
rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want
to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.
Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election
said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him.
So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of
town.
There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that
saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive
lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country
and everyone will know that elections don't matter.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace
until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance
over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.
Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing
from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
"... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
"... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
"... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
The witches in Macbeth.
President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides.
The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are
baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against
Trump.
One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military
coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'
As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has
been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.
One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly
Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And
when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.
Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by
appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated.
But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy
for others.
Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy
financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn
was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.
But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf
emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs
to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?
The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat
the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence,
end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers,
cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals
for a living.
No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears
in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'
That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos
of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of
Trump that are beginning.
Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria,
and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the
president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual
Arabs!
' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant
and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now.
Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting
to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business
like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?
This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is
no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder.
Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.
Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest
about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates
got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside
of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place
precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President.
Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their
own.
So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for
most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated
election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy
rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want
to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.
Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election
said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him.
So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of
town.
There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that
saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive
lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country
and everyone will know that elections don't matter.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace
until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance
over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.
Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing
from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various
national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been
complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure
of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite
possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something
just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that
I happen to agree with. I recently produced
my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup,
call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being
directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to
suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed
hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers
are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would
have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process
and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."
Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry
of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent
from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary
Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent
to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.
Ray
suggests that
Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI
cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular
was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by
Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced.
As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously
while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians,
it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated.
If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking
to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is
"Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?"
and then followed up with a second Piece
"The
'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up
of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually
committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.
Like Parry, I
am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is
awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators
ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge
within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a
group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.
Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted
of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly
suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted
in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced
a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore
was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.
Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how
the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working
by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so
when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through
executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support
allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless,
anyone even vaguely
connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential
traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of
the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.
Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional
liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who
believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.
The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy
mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive
action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing
down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal
for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also
fit.
The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with
the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment.
The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for
the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves
by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics
should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and
Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like
Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their
views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists
for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign
policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical
weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as
narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in
a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security
and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump
can do. Are They
Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified
The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered
to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.
In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system,
the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.
I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the
same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans
and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence
was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not
fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention:
have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where
They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North
Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was
all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During
this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of
agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack
on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones
plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental
bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start
of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.
While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give
him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting
for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide
peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him
out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant
and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey?
I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed
that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence
of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for
the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump.
This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What
next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that
is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated
this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of
FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates
and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and
her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated
to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?
The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.
Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece,
Netherlands.
In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want
to rid themselves of this establishment.
GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment
and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.
The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states,
power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars,
power of governments, on the other hand.
In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the
establishment, 40% rejects it.
In other countries more or less the same.
The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections
the efforts to contrue a government are a failure.
Belgium was more than a year without a government.
In Spain one government after another.
The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around.
Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland
and Hungary.
The Greek rebellion failed completely.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.
What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares
it with China.
Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep
state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.
A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president
won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.
Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent
Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that
the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.
Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The
story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life.
Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made
a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull
the trigger for him.
Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt
for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense
of service to his country.
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the
highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis
, as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership
growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we
should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when
our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination
to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of
millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on
?
Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty
pool" being played out in the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate
their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director"
at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that
Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary
due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives
in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release
Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie
nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted
Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head".
What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts
of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of
the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT
from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media,
by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the
Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist")
asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed
unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation?
Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the
Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?
Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't
matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to
see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably
already know or at least can guess.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.
For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion,"
but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.
Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla
of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would
not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.
If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the
various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected
president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already
too late for that.
I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to
loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from
deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time
he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small
feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.
The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama
left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change
on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them
apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and
predictable like Tom Pence.
@animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would
be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining
and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but
the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public
communications.
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing"
which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering
operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
Some of the investigations have expanded
their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate
Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know
more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal
investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This
may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey
firing??)
Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections
involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He
is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley
with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter
resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out
as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though
he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable
of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not
have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.
And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized
the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.
I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He
needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.
Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying
anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop
these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.
@Hobo
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian
thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in
a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
... ... ... ...
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft,
or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and
that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House.
Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House
itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with
that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to
the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated
interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of
his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."
It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's
bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered
Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives
utilizing
Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?
@Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties
and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really
a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard
beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive
cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its
good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate
in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power
they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live
in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them
all is what we must do.
I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself.
Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents
itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts
of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being
fought.
The "establishment" does not seem to care.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our
wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep
State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration
in office.
Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year.
Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the
establishment class and the deep state it lords over.
The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted
to war.
Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story.
Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.
The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending
our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed
the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently
of any administration in office.
Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories
is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under
investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is
no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making
the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome
legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good
investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."
At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?
There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps
its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?
@utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case
scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump
was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many
people will believe it.
@iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered
Hillary's bid
There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought
this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch
saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation)
and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince
a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited
by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance
State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse
has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their
nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are
waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation"
of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th
October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage
in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands
of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly
covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the
attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The
deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey.
Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.
My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign
assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement
will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting
his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner?
and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?
The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid.
They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against
Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which
there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the
people.
A purported cyberhack of the daughter of political consultant Paul Manafort suggests that he was
the victim of a blackmail attempt while he was serving as Donald Trump's presidential campaign chairman
last summer.
The undated communications, which are allegedly from the iPhone of Manafort's daughter,
include a text that appears to come from a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, seeking
to reach her father, in which he claims to have politically damaging information about both Manafort
and Trump.
Attached to the text is a
note
to Paul Manafort referring to "bulletproof" evidence related to Manafort's financial arrangement
with Ukraine's former president, the pro-Russian strongman Viktor Yanukovych, as well as an alleged
2012 meeting between Trump and a close Yanukovych associate named Serhiy Tulub.
"Considering all the facts and evidence that are in my possession, and before possible decision
whether to pass this to [the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine] or FBI I would like to get
your opinion on this and maybe your way to work things out that will persuade me to do otherwise,"
reads the note. It is signed "Sergii" - an alternative transliteration of Leshchenko's given name
- and it urges Manafort to respond to an email address that reporters have used to reach Leshchenko.
In the typo-ridden
text
to Manafort's daughter to which the note was attached, the sender writes from a different address,
"I need to get in touch with Paul i need to share some important information with him regarding ukraine
investigation." The sender adds "as soon as he comes back to me i will pass you documents," but also
warns: "if I don't get any reply from you iam gonaa pass it on to the fbi and ukrainian authorities
including media."
Leshchenko disavowed the texts in question, telling POLITICO on Tuesday "I've never written any
emails or messages to Manafort or his family. I don't know their contact details." He added he
said "I have nothing to do with" the email address from which the texts were sent.
And in a
Facebook
post , he wrote that the "correspondence with Manafort's daughter is obviously fake."
The White House did not respond to a question about whether Trump had met with Tulub, a hunting
buddy of Yanukovych's who had served in the government when Yanukovych was prime minister. But a
White House official questioned the chronology supporting the claim, explaining that Trump had not
worked with Manafort before the 2016 campaign.
In a Tuesday interview, Manafort denied brokering a 2012 meeting between Trump and Tulub and also
pointied out that he wasn't working for Trump at the time.
However, Manafort did confirm the authenticity of the texts hacked from his daughter's phone.
And he added that, before the texts were sent to his daughter, he had received similar texts to his
own phone number from the same address appearing to be affiliated with Leshchenko.
He said he did not respond directly to any of the texts, and instead passed them along to his
lawyer. He declined to provide the texts to POLITICO.
The hacked correspondence from his daughter's phone, much of which is unrelated to Paul Manafort's
work, appears to have first surfaced a couple of weeks ago in an anonymous post on a so-called darknet
website run by a hacktivist collective.
While the post hints in its introductory text that the hacker or hackers have additional information
on Manafort, it includes only a handful of screenshots of texts from Manafort's daughter's cellphone,
as well as some data files that appear to be related to the texts.
The images began circulating this week in political circles in Kiev and Washington.
The post comes at a time when there's intense interest in the connections between Trump's inner
circle and pro-Russian interests. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional committees
alike are looking into contacts between Trump's associates - including Manafort - and Russian officials
during the presidential campaign , and the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that
Russian
intelligence engineered cyberattacks on Democratic officials and groups with the intent of boosting
Trump's presidential campaign by damaging that of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
The screenshots of hacked texts sent to Manafort's daughter do not include any information indicating
the date on which they were sent.
But Manafort said that the first of the texts arrived shortly before The New York Times published
an
August exposé revealing that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine had obtained documents
- which have since come under scrutiny - that appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments earmarked
for Manafort.
Manafort challenged the authenticity of the documents. And, while he said he could not be sure
whether the texts apparently referencing them were in fact sent by Leshchenko, he said "I find it
coincidental that I got these texts, and then he released these phony journals."
The Times story identified Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has
built a reputation as an anti-corruption crusader, as a key player in revealing the documents.
They appear to be from a ledger maintained by the Party of Regions, which Yanukovych headed. With
financing from pro-Russian oligarchs , Manafort and his team helped resurrect Yanukovych's career
and get him elected prime minister in 2007 and
president in 2010 . But
Yanukovych
fled Ukraine for Russia under the protection of Russian President Vladimir Putin amid widespread
2013 protests over government corruption.
The documents eventually were provided to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, a government agency
that had signed an evidence-sharing agreement with the FBI in late June - less than a month and a
half before it released the ledgers.
The Times reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an investigation
by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an
overlapping inquiry.
Leshchenko held a news conference after the stories to highlight the documents, urging Ukrainian
and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.
"I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law - we have the
proof from these books," Leshchenko said during the news conference, which attracted international
media coverage. "If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he has to be interrogated into this
case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,"
Leshchenko added.
Manafort
denied receiving any off-the-books cash from Yanukovych's party and said he had never been contacted
about the ledger by Ukrainian or American investigators. Nonetheless, the swirling controversy from
the ledger reports forced him to
step down from Trump's campaign.
Yet, after Trump's surprising victory over Clinton, Ukrainian officials appeared to back away
from claims about the ledger and their investigations thereof.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine told POLITICO in December that a "general investigation"
of the ledger was "still ongoing," but it said Manafort was not a target of the investigation. "As
he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law couldn't investigate him
personally," the bureau said in a statement.
Although the bureau is structured as an independent agency, some critics of Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko contend that the ledgers may have been doctored or even forged and were disseminated
with Poroshenko's tacit support in an effort to damage Trump.
During the campaign, Ukrainian government officials publicly questioned Trump's fitness for office,
and they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, according
to a
POLITICO investigation published last month.
Poroshenko and his allies, who are scrambling to establish a relationship with the Trump administration,
have distanced themselves from those efforts, and from Leshchenko.
The anti-corruption bureau is "fully independent," a Poroshenko spokesman told POLITICO last month.
The spokesman said the presidential administration did not take any "targeted action against Manafort."
The spokesman in a written statement said Leshchenko "positions himself as a representative of
internal opposition in the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko's faction, despite [the fact that] he belongs
to the faction," adding, "it was about him personally who pushed [the anti-corruption bureau] to
proceed with investigation on Manafort."
The post that appears to be the first to disseminate the texts from Manafort's daughter included
some anti-Trump language, justifying the hack as retribution on behalf of those damaged by Trump's
politics.
The site hosting the post is associated with a hacktivist collective that is relatively unknown
in the cybersecurity world.
One former U.S. military intelligence cybersecurity analyst said, "I don't think we've got a history
with them. They are not a known entity."
The cybersecurity analyst, whose company patrols cyberspace in search of hacker groups for private
clients and government agencies, said the collective "seems like randos, not the nation-states we
usually track."
"... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
"... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
"... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget
the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between
corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and
the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.
The crisis we face is not embodied in the public
images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result
of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us
without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become
omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered
those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow
the neoliberal ,
corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities
as dangerous as Donald Trump.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Our descent into despotism began with the
pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial
assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals,
especially black radicals.
It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations
that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major
political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread
of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping
away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections
and dissent.
It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a
close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive
the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped
like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but
the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.
"What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known
political prisoner,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville,
Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives
of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that
. there is no critical thinking in America during this period...
... ... ...
Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may
be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of
the deep state and intensify
internal measures of repression.
"... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
"... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.
In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.
Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for
people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.
"Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets
fixed."
True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different
direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks
more and more like Warren Commission report.
... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after
having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating
that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but
then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up
destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the
kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
"... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
"... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
"... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
"... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
"... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
"... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
"... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
"... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
"... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
"... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
"... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
"... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
"... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
"... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
"... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
"... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
"... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
"... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
"... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
"... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails,
but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Why?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign
government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton
crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top
of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails
which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads
that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to
do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.
We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither
the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is
that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?
And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the
last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?
According to Fox News:
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home
had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .
Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich
family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)
Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their
political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking
story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins
who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline,
are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins
who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.
WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active
interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction
of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?
I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not
just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being
used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could
actually change the course of history.
Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust
what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked"
by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset
with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray)
appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit
to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .
Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages
about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical
danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian
government.
"The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the
same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting
that information out had legal access to that information
Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services,
NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"
"I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they
are leaks by Americans."
("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news,
but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.
Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and,
so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?
Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In
fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof
of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called
The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a
smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran
journalist Robert Parry summed it up:
"The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further,
the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive
because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert
Parry, Consortium News)
Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking
gun", eh?
If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because
it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was
corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that
served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:
"On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia
deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe
this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one
reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked"
from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts
were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved
by the directors of the three agencies and me."
This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from
just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout
the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through
some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .
A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over
the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no
role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA
and reviewed and approved their conclusions .
The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether
it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency
."
("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)
Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't
it?
Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected
the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create
consensus.
3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?
Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.)
4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?
No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This
of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.
5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?
Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."
6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question
their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?
Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:
"I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian
interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions
are under assault internally."
When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)
Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of
the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")
7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?
No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would
'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's
no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:
"12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed
there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:
The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that
the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)
Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes
to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want
to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?
How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?
First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant
and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will
help to put things into perspective:
"Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense
of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal
Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy
grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.
"These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding,
all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,"
the letter states.
Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and
observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen
apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI
Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)
Get the picture?
Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't
trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.
American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify
Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:
"There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July
2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence
gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table",
American Thinker)
Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving
the way for impeachment proceedings?
Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings
in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These
things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer
Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the
CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"
("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)
Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the
claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative
as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet'
our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't
seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely
been limited to the wimps in Europe.
sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a
governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.
imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington
projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.
once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking
for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it
out ability project power.
our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries
like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.
forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and
the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.
watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights
here.
@Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and
retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family
now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough
influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and
the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around
to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity
and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes
of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players.
Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical
& economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of
that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there
is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening
is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like
this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.
And then, the gates of hell break open in America.
@Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled
to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in
this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?
Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and
volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the
likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And
they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that
there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person
casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a
vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this
process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's
Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over
Clinton.
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away.
We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong
arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on
our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the
Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps
I should have said " won the popular vote count ".
As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.
My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.
I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military
dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland
mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking
version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.
If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia
action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go
along with the official line.
Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.
All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in
"national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global
security".
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped
away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters
strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well
on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts
to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what
it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the
drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.
It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only
that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.
I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to
remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol
Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly
for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.
"Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."
I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months?
I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in
Washington State is the cause of his delusions?
We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders,
and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but
my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due
to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan,
as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.
He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational
institutions. None of that in the USA.
As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere
about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike
the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).
He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of
that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time,
and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right
now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout
4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you
will only find in the video game!
December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security
In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing
the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political
ploy.
Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss
his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.
Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?
It is Julian, not Julien.
I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that
slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly
extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.
Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some
great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about
the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default
on bail.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that
have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without
the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could
safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that
I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its
borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will
they do that?
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot
be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national
cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to
tear the homeland apart.
The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system,
to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.
Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks
were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the
French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern
countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.
At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment,
Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.
@Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that
u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head??
https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
"... John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign ..."
"... Mr. Brennan became so concerned last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress, speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president. ..."
"... Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad intelligence community report revealing that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election. ..."
John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible
ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Trump asked two top intelligence officials to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and
Russia, former officials said. Both of the intelligence officials are testifying before lawmakers on Tuesday.
Mr. Brennan, the former CIA director, said Tuesday that he became concerned last year that the Russian government was trying to
influence members of the Trump campaign to act - wittingly or unwittingly - on Moscow's behalf.
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials
and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
Mr. Brennan told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee.
It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals," he said, adding that
he did not know whether the Russian efforts were successful. He added, "I don't know whether such collusion existed." It was the first time he publicly acknowledged that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
He said he left office in January with many unanswered questions about the Russian influence operation. Intelligence officials
have said that Russia tried to tip the election toward Mr. Trump.
Mr. Brennan became so concerned
last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress,
speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there
was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president.
Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad
intelligence community report revealing
that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election.
"... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
"... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
"... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget
the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between
corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and
the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.
The crisis we face is not embodied in the public
images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result
of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us
without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become
omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered
those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow
the neoliberal ,
corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities
as dangerous as Donald Trump.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Our descent into despotism began with the
pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial
assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals,
especially black radicals.
It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations
that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major
political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread
of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping
away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections
and dissent.
It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a
close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive
the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped
like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but
the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.
"What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known
political prisoner,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville,
Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives
of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that
. there is no critical thinking in America during this period...
... ... ...
Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may
be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of
the deep state and intensify
internal measures of repression.
"... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
"... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.
In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.
Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for
people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.
"Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets
fixed."
True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different
direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks
more and more like Warren Commission report.
... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after
having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating
that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but
then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up
destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the
kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
"... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates
of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and
according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia
investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document
requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far
Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee
subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.
According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between
June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that
period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia
or Russians."
While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information
to investigators by last Friday's deadline.
"I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.
A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested
in cooperating with the Senate investigation.
NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with
the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas
for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.
Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported
citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin
would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after
misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.
This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?
I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three
administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed
to the DNC or RNC.
If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.
My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions
and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?
"... Intelligence [agencies] started #Russiagate ..."
"... Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI. ..."
"... But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January? ..."
"... If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January? ..."
"... Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction? ..."
"... But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th? ..."
"... Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March 20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation, especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page. ..."
"... Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis. ..."
"... We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media hysteria and excess , and possibly even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite literally driving the country crazy. ..."
"... Mueller quit his regular job, so he needs to be Special Counsel for as long as possible. So, it's (2). He doesn't have to say he's found anything, he just needs to say the investigation continues. It could continue into and after the next general election, making Trump a lame duck from now until the end of his term. ..."
Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing
colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned
by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI.
Amid the chaos of James Comey's firing, new questions about the timeline of his fateful investigation
... ... ...
Todd went out of his way to hammer at the question of whether or not he knew of any evidence of
collusion. Clapper again said, "Not to my knowledge." Here Todd appropriately pressed him: If it
did exist, would you know?
To this, Clapper merely answered, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since
I left the government."
That's not an unequivocal "yes," but it's close. There's no way to compare Clapper's statements on
March 5th to his interviews last week and not feel that something significant changed between then
and now.
Clapper's statements seem even stranger in light of James Comey's own testimony in the House on
March 20th.
In that appearance, Comey – who by then had dropped his bombshell about the existence of an investigation
into Trump campaign figures – was asked by New York Republican Elise Stefanik when he notified the
DNI about his inquiry.
"Good question," Comey said. "Obviously, the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along.
The DNI, I don't know what the DNI's knowledge of it was, because we didn't have a DNI – until Mr.
Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning."
Comey was saying that he hadn't briefed the DNI because between January 20th, when Clapper left
office, and March 16th, when former Indiana senator and now Trump appointee Dan Coats took office,
the DNI position was unfilled.
But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director
under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January?
If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it
to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence
of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January?
Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle
in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly
be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction?
Again, prior to last week, Clapper had said he would know if there was a FISA warrant issued on
this matter. But then on April 11th,
law enforcement and government officials leaked – anonymously, as has been the case throughout
most of this story – that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump associate
Carter Page.
So what's going on here? In talking to people on the Hill last week, I heard a number of theories.
One interpretation is that the FBI, concerned about operational security, conducted a secret investigation
during the last months of Barack Obama's presidency without informing the likes of Clapper and other
agency chiefs.
But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it
under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting
public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th?
Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March
20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than
one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation,
especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page.
But the context of these interviews still makes Clapper dissembling in his March interview a strange
and unlikely possibility. Clapper has not been in the habit of doing Trump political favors this
season. And if indeed it's standard practice for a DNI to not know what counterintelligence operations
the FBI might be up to, it would have made a lot more sense for Clapper to say that on Meet the
Press on March 5th.
Instead, he did Trump a solid by stating unequivocally that there were no FISA warrants out, and
that he would have known if there were, adding he had seen no evidence of collusion. Why?
When James Comey was fired last week, I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view.
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes
and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive
who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the
Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs,
if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless
it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington
who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation
support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged
crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone
higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper
– possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to
get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason. Gutting a money-laundering
case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger
nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
However, let's say the FBI is actually investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and
the Russian state. That's the most serious possibility, and the one exciting so much public dread.
If it's that, what's at the heart of that case? Why can't we be told what's going on? Operational
secrecy would be a believable excuse, were it not for the fact that so much else has been leaked.
Intelligence sources even
appeared to give up their ability to capture Russian officials celebrating Trump's election win.
If something like that can be leaked, and if even foreign governments can be told about "leverages
of pressure" Russia
allegedly has
on Trump , it stands to reason that the American public should have heard what's behind the Trump-Russia
investigation by now.
Trump easily could have committed some disqualifying act in response to this scandal. The worry
about that is why we've always needed an independent investigation.
Such an investigation into Trump's campaign might very well uncover a range of improprieties and
shady dealings by some of the campaign "associates" who've figured into news reports. This wouldn't
be surprising, I don't think, even to some of the people in the White House.
But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil
liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in
which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of
the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations.
It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret
evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified
or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one
seems to care.
We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media
hysteria
and excess , and possibly
even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation
with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant
stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite
literally driving the country crazy.
The public deserves to know what's going on. It deserved to know before the election, it deserved
to know before the inauguration, and it deserves to know now.
Mueller quit his regular job, so he needs to be Special Counsel for as long as possible. So,
it's (2). He doesn't have to say he's found anything, he just needs to say the investigation continues.
It could continue into and after the next general election, making Trump a lame duck from now
until the end of his term.
"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in
America. His discretion is tremendous. . . .While the prosecutor at his best is one of the
most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is
one of the worst."
A prosecutor has almost unilateral, unchecked ability to destroy the lives of those he charges.
It is beyond troubling that our top law enforcement officer chooses the company of those who repeatedly
failed their duty.
It's obvious that this Russia-Trump investigation is a ruse to spy on Trump and his associates
for dirt. I'm sure the Obama Admin spied on other political foes. His admin has a history of it.
Let's hope that Mueller actually has some integrity and finds the truth.
See: Trevor Aaronson: "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War On Terrorism,"
Irish Good ol boy Mueller as FBI DIRECTOR created the Terror Factory- conspired to entrap Muslims
and arrested them as terrorists to justify the FBI's inflated budget.
The FBI are the keystone cops. They are coverup operators & incompetent. Nothing but a gangster
operation.
Mueller mentored Comey. Both are corrupt, pretending to be patriotic.
Comey got $3 million as a "board member" at Lockheed Martin to shut down Clintons Treason investigation.
Mueller wants Trump's tax returns to dig into. He has UNLIMITED boundaries to probe.
Obama never gave up his life to an independent counsel. Lynch Holder & Yates protected him.
Rod Rosenstein must be compromised. No other answer why he didn't protect Trump.
Gangsters are running our country like a banana republic.
No honest person can lead these criminals. They turn the tables & charge the innocent.
(See Senator Stevens because he ran for another term in Alaska. They killed him!)
Substitute Trump for Hil-Lia-y & any special counsel will have enough
evidence to execute her.
Why doesn't Tahibbi investigate the uranium hil-liar y sold to the Russians & how she LAUNDERED
A payoff INTO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION; or Why the FBI DIDN'T SEIZE THE DNC COMPUTERS; or why was
Seth Rich assassinated?
Or how john podesta got rich on Russian banking while working in the Obama White House.
What came first, Matt, voter fraud or Trump's large crowds?
Read the book, "Shattered" & you will discover how & Hil-liar-y CONSPIRED TO SPIN THE WAG THE
DOG EXCUSE AS A RUSSIAN HACK WHEN IT WAS SETH RICH , & they murdered him.
Gumshoe reporter or Goebbels parrot, which are you, Matt?
Maybe the investigation is a ruse started by Obama apparatchiks with the idea that Trump would
self-destruct under the pressure Looks like it's working.
The "Russia" investigation is a red herring, a hoax. Can anyone, anyone name the statute that
is being referenced for this "investigation?" They can't because there is none. Is there any claim
or evidence that a single vote was compromised by the "Russians" in favor of Trump? Anyway, they
don't want him POTUS, because he is no pushover, like HRC would have been. it's all a fiction,
all of it.
"... Such investigations NEVER stick to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further. The order the Acting Attorney General wrote includes language which allows for nearly unlimited digging in "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It will thereby continue until -inevitably- some dirt will be found that can be blown out of all proportion and lead to prosecutions or impeachment. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Flynn's communication of the decision was influenced by money. Flynn had registered his lobbying under the Lobbying Disclosure Act with the Clerk of the House of Representatives effectively September 15, 2016. ..."
"... Trump believes that better relations with Russia are important for the well-being of the United States, Pence would likely pursue an anti-Russian policy. That, I believe, is the real issue here. There are no unbeseeming relations between Trump and Russia. Russia had little, if any, influence on the 2016 election. There was no "Russian meddling". But Trump's somewhat more friendly behavior towards Russia, which he campaigned for, is disliked by the-powers-that-are. ..."
"... He didn't even know what hit him. His assistant attorney general gave him the news just 30 minutes before he released it to the media. Anyone who thinks the rump is the engineer is dreaming. he's in the caboose, playing solitaire with the twits. ..."
"... I disagree this is bad. This appointment should give Trump & Sessions cover to appoint a decent FBI Director and properly go after Hilary Clinton, John Podesta, Clinton Foundation and find out who had Seth Rich murdered. ..."
"... who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information? Just Rex Tillerson and McMaster (and the two Russians). McMaster is in regular communication with Paul Wolfowitz. Isn't it possible that McMaster is the mole, and then he has tried to hide his tracks by defending Trump publicly? ..."
"... The 'Russia did it', in conjunction with the 'Trump is in bed with the Russians', narratives, both completely unsubstantiated, were chosen to be seized on as a red-herring to stick like a burr to, to milk for all they could be milked for, for a variety of reasons by the PTB. ..."
"... For example, there is still a handy residual fear of Russia in the States, and Putin has been relentlessly demonized, so let's make use of it, and Russia effectively opposes 'full spectrum dominance, etc', and the spooks and MIC depend for a living on a scary big boogieman. ..."
"... The leaked extreme pathology on display easily interpreted in the Podesta emails via Wikileaks, along with the Weiner computer 'treasure trove' of emails - and the latter reportedly turned the stomach of an experienced key member of the NYPD, and involved evidence or indications of many serious crimes, Clintons involved - and then the murder of Seth Rich for having been in effect a hugely important whistleblower via Wikileaks, this mass of evidence re the seamy sick side of the massive Swamp had to be buried, silenced. ..."
"... There were two interpreter-scribes in there, both of whom made a transcript of the conversations. Putin's offer to turn over his was rebuffed, leading one to believe mischief is afoot on our side. ..."
"... The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. ..."
"... The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. ..."
"... Filling his admin with goldman sachs scum ..."
"... Bombing Syria and helping out IS and al Qaeda for the neocons ..."
"... Considering dual citizen garbage like Lieberman ..."
"... and almost every other campaign promise he ever made. And while this is happening Trump supporters are still patting themselves on the back with blather about the power of their 'memes'. ..."
"... The Dutch are just one of many tentacles of the Christian Colonial octopus/ Swamp Alliance. All of Christian Colonialism's warmongering, banksterised, govt-toppling, movers and shakers (US, France, Germany, UK etc etc) are on board with the Get Trump conspiracy. One thing they have in common is that they all (including Oz) get their "News" from the Jew-controlled MSM and are anti-Palestinian and apologists for Jewish Colonialism in Palestine. The worsening facts-on-the-ground in "Israel" speak volumes about Christian Colonialism's support for the Israel Project. ..."
"... "Israeli"-dominated News is the de facto bullshit/ talking-point manufacturer & coordinator for The West. ..."
"... Language in the remit that authorizes an open-ended investigation is a mandate to find something to pin on the target of the investigation, not an authorization for a "proper investigation." ..."
"... Mueller's charge is to find something to pin on Trump, not to conduct a "proper investigation." ..."
"... Trump is NOT a member of the club which is the Republican Hierarchy. Those are the real motherfuckers. They do not want him to be prez and he is not welcome in their club. Neither is Trump an official errand boy for the Deep State (many among both parties are official errand boys and girls). Again, Trump is not an official errand boy. ..."
"... Trump has tried to appease the rotten motherfuckers. He really has. Trump is already ratfucking the middle class and the poor in accordance with their prescription. Trump will keep on trying to please them (See Joe Lieberhebrewratbastard). ..."
"... No matter, they strapped Pence to his back, BECAUSE they want a malleable errand boy who will DO Exactly as he is instructed ..."
"... Things are not as they seem. IMO this is a carefully scripted plan by the Deep State to push Trump into Total War, not that he was not inclined to do so anyways. His Russian connections lead to mafia ties so deep he could lose everything under Rico. He knows this. Once the War begins the internet kill switch is thrown and the lights go out. Martial Law. Like in WWI, if you criticize the war you go to jail. A Deep State Dream. ..."
"... Trump was a Trojan Horse ..."
"... MIC and international Banks will be rolling in the dough. Everyone wins except those caught in the carnage down below (bottom 99%) and of course those nations we obliterate with Shock & Awe on Steroids (nukes) ..."
"... Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office. ..."
"... Trump does not have any experts or thinkers of note that do not belong to the "meritocrats", i.e. the Washington establishment. Bannon is perhaps a thinker, but hardly of note. I even doubt that Trump has any good instincts, except that at occasion he had the childish gift of noticing that this or that has "no cloths". But the next thing a child does is throwing a tantrum for some petty reason. ..."
"... Wow what a show. Faux populist Obama was also politically weakened by crazy opposition. Faux populist Obama was also forced FORCED! to do the establishment's bidding. Could Trump be the Republican Obama? Are we all falling for essentially the same con? Few can wrap their heads around that possibility. Yet ... ..."
"... That doesn't necessarily mean it'll be Trump's dirt that washes up. If Seth Rich is proven to have leaked the emails to Wikileaks, the Russian hacking narrative evaporates, and the Ukrainian collusion to manipulate the election from the Democrat side is legitimately within the ambit of the investigation. We may yet see the Democrat Party prosecuted as a continuing criminal enterprise, and none too soon. ..."
"... They describe the capabilities of US Internet advertisers, even worse post-net-neutrality, and project it onto Russia. Their desperation reeks. ..."
"... Obama was never in the "opposition", Trump is indeed in the opposition but the question is if he have the strength to stand up to these sick people in deepstate/msm. With attacks on Syria etc it doesnt look good but there is no comparsion to the wimp Obama. ..."
"... "Politicians, journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for 'Putin's puppets.'" http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/how-muellers-investigation-could-turn-raging-mccarthyesque-witchhunt/ri19884 ..."
"... "the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials" Which part of this sourcing in the article did you not understand? The more interesting questions are what is the purpose of releasing this information by a US puppet, who colluded in the release and how it plays into the 'Trump betrayed Israel' hysteria. ..."
"... My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a 'faux populist model of governance'. Elements of this model are ..."
"... A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she intends to capture a future payoff for himself. ..."
"... Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable hands' by TPTB. ..."
"... crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists. I call them "enforcers". ..."
"... ... they are self-funding operations. once the money starts to flow a portion is set aside for kickbacks, bribes, and efforts to protect the mainstream funding itself. it is truly a parasitic operation that feeds on the fruits of its effort on others' behalf, and thus strengthens itself, becoming a stand-alone operation. ..."
"... there are tens of thousands of people in ac/dc working in these operations, looking out for taiwan's interests, israel's interests, making sure that russia stays demonized ... all the various corporate issues ... but at base and before all else, looking out for number one. ..."
"... a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government in favor of the lucrative process of policy misdirection itself. ..."
"... Y'all may remember that Trump's domestic business dealings had some Mob connections. I think Wm Engdahl, among other, reported on this. Well, if you google Trump and Russian Mafia you will see an entirely different idea as to what this attack on Trump might be about. ..."
The Trump administration made a huge mistake by not preventing the
just announced special council investigation into the alleged, but likely non-existing "Trump-Russia" connections:
The Justice Department appointed a special counsel Wednesday to investigate possible coordination between President Trump's associates
and Russian officials - a clear signal to the White House that federal investigators will aggressively pursue the matter despite
the president's insistence that there was no "collusion'' with the Kremlin.
Robert S. Mueller III, a former prosecutor who served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013, has agreed to take over the investigation
as a special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announced. The move marks a concession by the Trump administration
to Democratic demands for the investigation to be run independently of the Justice Department. Calls for a special counsel intensified
after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey last week.
It is weird that the WaPo report above calls this "a concession by the Trump administration to Democratic demands for the investigation".
It further states that the White House was not informed about it until it had been made:
The White House did not learn of Rosenstein's decision until just 30 minutes before the public announcement was made.
Anyway. This is bad and the Trump administration should have pulled all strings to prevent it. Such investigations NEVER stick
to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further. The
order the Acting
Attorney General wrote includes language which allows for nearly unlimited digging in "any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation." It will thereby continue until -inevitably- some dirt will be found that can be blown out of all proportion
and lead to prosecutions or impeachment.
Both men were rising stars mentored and guided by Eric Holder in the 1990s during Holder's time in the Justice Department under
the Clinton administration.
...
Mueller, now 68, and Comey, now 52, would become close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead.
...
Both, Comey and Mueller, were involved in the dramatic hospital scene at the bed of Attorney General Ashcroft to stop Bush's illegal
program of spying on U.S. citizens. The program in question stopped for a moment but the spying simply continued under a different
legal justification.
The attempts to smear Trump and those around him over foreign connections have entered absurd territory. The lead headline at
McClatchy today is a. old news, b. confusing the timeline only to further throw dirt into the direction of Trump:
One of the Trump administration's first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before
he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he'd been paid
more than $500,000 to represent.
The incoming Trump administration temporarily stopped the Raqqa campaign which the Obama administration had decided would be done
with Kurdish forces. This was
on January 17 , only a few days before the Trump administration took over. The Obama administration itself had deliberated about
the issue for over 8 month and its choice was not its preferred option:
Most of the shortcomings outlined by the Trump team were obvious to Obama's advisers he added. In fact, the senior Obama administration
official said, arming the Kurds was Obama's Plan B, after it became clear that Plan A - using Turkish forces to take Raqqa - would
not be feasible.
It is doubtful that Flynn's communication of the decision was influenced by money. Flynn had
registered his lobbying under the Lobbying Disclosure Act with the Clerk of the House of Representatives effectively September
15, 2016. According to his later
filling (pdf) at the Foreign Agent Registry, his consulting contract with the Turkish owned company had ended three month later,
on November 15, 2016. The owner of the company Inovo, which had hired Flynn, is Ekim Alptekin, an ally of the Turkish President Erdogan.
(Alptekin's lawyer ones
asserted that the
company had acted on behalf of Israeli gas interests. The two Israeli gas companies possibly involved both denied any such connection.)
Alptekin himself denied any connection to
Trump administration decisions and correctly noted that Trump had practically no chance of winning the election at the time Alptekin
had hired Flynn who was then just one of many Trump advisors.
There is no reasonable relation between Flynn's lobbying for Turkish interest and the halt of the Raqqa campaign preparations.
Attempts to drawn lines between
the Turkish lobbying and Russian interests end up as convoluted rumor collections. With the Raqqa halt the Trump administration
simply rejected to take responsibility for a military adventure (which had not even started) based on a dubious last-minute Obama
decision. It wanted to review the issue and decide after its own assessment.
One has to ask why McClatchy is reporting this now? That Flynn had was lobbying for Alptekin's company was registered in September
and
first reported in November 2016. The temporary halt of the Raqqa campaign planing was decided on January 17 and
reported on February 2 2017. Where then is the "news" value in this May 2017 McClatchy report?
Aspecial council investigation will, of course, jump on such not-news reports like McClatchy's. He will dramatically invite witnesses
and leak further rumors to the media - even when the basic facts show that there is nothing to it. Such investigations pursue death
by a thousand cuts.
The Democrats, and especially progressives, work against their voters interest when they pursue a Trump impeachment which would
let Vice President Pence take the White House:
Pence is a horror -- fiscal sadist, misogynist, homophobe, lover of the carceral state.
Pence is way more conservative than Trump. With Republicans in power in Congress he could easily implement all the horrific policies
he ever dreamed of.
But the borg and the Democratic leadership are
not concerned about that:
Democrats cheered the [special council] announcement as a step forward in resolving the unanswered questions about Russian meddling
in last year's presidential election - and whether the president or anyone at the White House has interfered with the investigation.
Trump believes that better relations with Russia are important for the well-being of the United States, Pence
would likely pursue an anti-Russian
policy. That, I believe, is the real issue here. There are no unbeseeming relations between Trump and Russia. Russia had little,
if any, influence on the 2016 election. There was no "Russian meddling". But Trump's somewhat
more friendly behavior towards Russia, which he
campaigned for, is disliked by the-powers-that-are.
We can now expect a very long drawn special council investigation with lots of media leaks and reporting. It will drown out all
other important issues. It will likely end badly for Trump and badly for peaceful global power relations.
Posted by b on May 18, 2017 at 07:07 AM |
Permalink
1) Allow me to hail your work. I myself have done research on the Web, I know how much work it can be, and the speed at which
you find relevant information and put it together is absolutely stunning.
2) To quote you, "It will end badly for Trump, badly for global power relations", and I add, badly for Western democracies. The
gloves are coming off: we Westerners (USA, EU, etc) have democratic systems... as long as we vote as we are told. In other terms,
ours is a wolf in sheep's clothing system, and the truth is we live in banana republics.
Our US-led system has never seen anything wrong about toppling elected leaders and sponsoring the worst dictators in places
like Asia, Europe, the Middle-East or South America. They've done it for decades. Why did we ever imagine they would hesitate
to do the same at home?
I'm persuaded there's nothing there, so are you, b. Yet for obvious reasons, many are not. So Trump did the wise thing: he is
cooperating with the only chance he has of putting this manufactured issue to bed.
While special investigations can be pretty bad, I do not see a superior alternative. Investigations are part of the executive
function of the government, at least in USA, and the executive power has too many temptations to meddle, temptations that Trump
did not resist. On paper, the special prosecutor is accomplished and "non-partisan", one can quibble if they could not found someone
with a higher numeral, like Robert S. Mueller IV (III means that both dad and grandad were Roberts, rather than alternate between
two names like kings of Denmark who alternate between Christian and Frederik).
As I understand it the task is to "oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence
the 2016 presidential election and related matters" Mueller was appointed by Bush. As I understand it, he has to report to Rod
Rosenstein, a Republican, who
fired Comey . The devil is in the "related matters" - which might be anything from the DNC leak to the Obama administration
spying on the Trump campaign.
@2 bf, 'Trump did the wise thing: he is cooperating with the only chance he has of putting this manufactured issue to bed ...'
He didn't even know what hit him. His assistant attorney general gave him the news just 30 minutes before he released it
to the media. Anyone who thinks the rump is the engineer is dreaming. he's in the caboose, playing solitaire with the twits.
The show will go on. The rump will continue from somewhere in the white house at the length of his leash, blowing off steam
as he goes, but the pressure in the boiler will continuously drop and the sound of his whistle will diminish, calling more and
more lonesome night after night from the tracks along the twitter line. an endless line of dictators will stream through the white
house, each duly proclaimed his new best friend.
People all over the world will begin to reduce as much as possible their exposure to all things American, especially the dollar.
Trump's experience in dog-eat-dog BizWorld would have included worse scenarios than this Star Chamber gambit by the Swamp. And
the Swamp is so politicized and corrupt that Team Trump will drown them in their own bs.
"Pence is a horror-fiscal sadist, misogynist, homophobe, lover of the carceral state."
They forgot "Israeli-firster" and this doesn't even scratch the surface. The only thing worse than having the U.S. with nobody
in charge since election day is having a sniveling little psychopath like Pence in charge. I still think I'll be right about WW
III - I was just one president too early. God does have a sense of humor, and the joke is on the U.S. Few tears will be shed.
We had it coming for a long time now.
I disagree this is bad. This appointment should give Trump & Sessions cover to appoint a decent FBI Director and properly
go after Hilary Clinton, John Podesta, Clinton Foundation and find out who had Seth Rich murdered.
Justice for Seth Rich. Fire Clinton Corrupt Cabal Crony Andy McCabe and put him in the dock for the cover-up. Do it Trump and
don't stuff it up!
Speaking of "Israeli-firster" and "appoint a decent FBI Director", it appears that in the latest iteration of Tales from the
Crypt, none other than Joe Lieberman has been resurrected from the undead to become odds on favourite as the next FBI Director.
The same uber-Zionist Lieberman who makes Pence look positively meek in regard to Israel, who sponsored the Iraqi War Resolution
Act , and who along with fellow lunatics McCain and Graham comprised the more war act known as the Three Amigos.
Does this idiocy ever stop? -- US with its deep state and media is really in a mess with this hatred against Russia and the sick
witch hunt to find 1 piece of evidence to get rid of Trump. This is McCarthyism all over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] The term
refers to U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting
roughly from 1947 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression as well as a campaign spreading fear of influence
on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents".
somebody
How is this hysteria a good thing? There is no russian connection. Its a hoax and its scary how people buy this, eventually
this will result in hot war.
Re: Posted by: pantaraxia | May 18, 2017 9:51:03 AM | 13
Well. If Trump is dumb enough to make Lieberman his next FBI Director he will have only himself to blame for his failed Presidency.
Given Lieberman's a well known swamp creature though I can't possibly see Trump making such a huge error so soon after making
such a great decision - ie - Firing Corrupt Comey. Take it to the bank - there is no chance Lieberman will be FBI Director.
Debsisdead@12 - "...Pence will be gone quick smart so that the whores on the hill can manipulate some schmuck into the VP gig
so if they do get the trumpet, the whores will own the executive..."
Why would the powers that be want Pence gone, Debs? It has nothing to do with Pence's vision or skills. It has everything to
do with how 'ownable' he is, and that guy (as you have observed) is very ownable . The perfect lapdog for the deep state.
Spiro Agnew indeed.
"...IMO, that is a good thing when pols spend their days trying to fuck each other up it diverts them away from their usual
business of trying to fuck us up..."
I'll humbly suggest you have not been watching closely enough. The shackles are being slipped over your ankles while you watch
the juggling monkeys duke it out. The monkeys have little to do with anything - they're the entertainment and distraction. People
fall for it every time. Why would it be different this time around?
I believe TPTSB's appointment of a special investigator serves as a counterweight to recent revelations of a direct Communication
between Seth Rich and Wikileaks.
I.e. it's the age old strategy of obfuscation, smoke and mirrors: when adversaries find and present evidence against you, a
counter-attack of at least the same proportions makes the perfect defense (with lamestream media shills on their side, this is
gonna get ridiculous coverage). In this way they're killing 2 flies with 1 strike - taking the heat off of themselves and transforming
Trump's offensive into a desperate attempt to save face and not get impeached.
Forbidden to make business with Russia? Yes apparently it is. Since the election US media and the ongoing investigation on
Russia have already put out according to themselves clear evidence of Russian influence. Have you missed this? How is this hysteria
a good thing now?
The tangled web of international business connections and deals runs across all so called' national interest' lines and any sanctions
and such for the big boyz. The HSBC conviction and deferred prosecution being a prime example. This is but one small corner that
may be revealed and no doubt Trump has business connections with the more shadowy Russian oligarchs as the casino-resort business
has long ties with organized crime and the Russians of this bent would probably like a piece of that action by investing in a
Trump development.
It is one of my beliefs that a big portion of Trump's political ideology could be summed up as 'What is good for the casino
resorts is good for America.' So a disappearing American middle class is 'not good,' and thus 'America needs to be made great
again.' Three axioms prevail in deciphering today's world: cui bono, follow the money, and don't be distracted by the manufactured
distractions. In this case a lot of roads lead back to the Clintons et al.
I agree with somebody@4 and Julian@10, A special Council Investigation cannot limit its investigation to Trump and Associates,
a proper investigation will go where the evidence leads, since Clinton and the DNC servers are also in the frame and should be
even more investigated by Special Council since it is the DNC and it's MSM supporters complaints which have led the affair thus
far.
Seth Rich, for instance is alleged to have 44,000 emails and 17,000 attachments on his computor, which again have been alleged
to have been shared with Wikileaks through its now deceased Director Gavin MacFadyen. Adding credence to this claim is Wikileaks
20,000 dollar reward for any information on who killed Seth Rich. This is a double edged sword which could blow Clinton the DNC
and all their nefarious machinations out the water.
But this is not a new investigation, its the continuation of the ongoing investigation about so called russian influence -
comey had to go and this new guy will take over. This investigation which have been ongoing past months have nothing to do with
Clinton whatsoever to do with. Is this really news for people?
I'll take the guess that this will initially look to be on the up-and-up, and then turn into a political Kenneth Star type of
affair. It's all ugly. They really are swamp creatures.
Just read An article entitled Trump Escalates Syrian Proxy War over at Consortium News. Could not care less what happens to Trump,
he brought it all on himself. Iran, Russia and China need to get their defenses ready as the guns will be turned in them when
the US has finished tearing itself apart
Trump tweets: "With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a
special councel [sic] appointed!
"This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!"
Zerohedge chimes in: "Of course, he does seem to have a point that after all the revelations of intentional evidence destruction
(remember BleachBit), despite the known existence of a Congressional subpoena, intentional violations of the Federal Records Retention
Act, secret Bill Clinton meetings with the Attorney General on Phoenix tarmacs and the passing out of immunity deals "like they
were candy" by former FBI Director Comey, it does seem curious that no special counsel was ever appointed to look into Hillary's
case. Will Trump now insist that one be appointed?"
Unfortunately, the crimes Trump's committed as POTUS come under the category of Crimes of Empire for which no POTUS has ever
been impeached. One possible outcome from this political war would be the rise of an alternative political party having no connections
with the wreckage of the D or R parties. I propose it be named the 99% Party.
Though the president has complained that Comey failed to investigate leaks of intelligence data from within his administration,
The Washington Post effectively accused the president himself of becoming the leaker in chief by revealing to the Russians
information so secret that only a handful of Americans legally possessed it. That information consisted of the name of a city
in Syria from which spies had reported that the Islamic State group was plotting to plant bombs on commercial airliners.
What is so secret about that? Intelligence data almost always requires reading between the lines. Doing so here reveals
the country from which the intelligence came, as there is only one friendly country that has sufficient intelligence resources
in that city to develop local human spies. That country, which the president did not name but which we know is Israel, at first
threatened to cut off providing intelligence data to the U.S. because of the president's private revelations but later said
that all is forgiven. So, the president told the Russians where to find Israeli spies in Syria.
The fact that these revelations were private is of legal significance. Under federal law, the president can declassify any
secrets, even the most highly sensitive and guarded ones. He can do so by whispering the secret into someone's ear or by formally
removing the secret from its The Freedom Answer Boo... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $3.01 classified status.
But because he did not do the latter, the secret is still a secret - yet The Washington Post has this material and may now
legally reveal it.
All of this demonstrates that rogue intelligence agents can engage in their own form of agitprop - agitation propaganda.
And they can cause political harm with it. Yet the questions of whether Donald Trump revealed top secrets to the Russians and,
if he did so, whether it was intentional or not and whether it was harmful to national security are questions to which we are
entitled to answers. And was Jim Comey fired for getting too close to the truth or not close enough?
who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information? Just Rex Tillerson and McMaster (and the two Russians).
McMaster is in regular communication with Paul Wolfowitz. Isn't it possible that McMaster is the mole, and then he has tried to
hide his tracks by defending Trump publicly?
The 'Russia did it', in conjunction with the 'Trump is in bed with the Russians', narratives, both completely unsubstantiated,
were chosen to be seized on as a red-herring to stick like a burr to, to milk for all they could be milked for, for a variety
of reasons by the PTB.
For example, there is still a handy residual fear of Russia in the States, and Putin has been relentlessly demonized, so
let's make use of it, and Russia effectively opposes 'full spectrum dominance, etc', and the spooks and MIC depend for a living
on a scary big boogieman.
But the main intent was to divert public attention from extremely serious revelations about the Swamp that is the Washington
PsTB.
The leaked extreme pathology on display easily interpreted in the Podesta emails via Wikileaks, along with the Weiner computer
'treasure trove' of emails - and the latter reportedly turned the stomach of an experienced key member of the NYPD, and involved
evidence or indications of many serious crimes, Clintons involved - and then the murder of Seth Rich for having been in effect
a hugely important whistleblower via Wikileaks, this mass of evidence re the seamy sick side of the massive Swamp had to be buried,
silenced.
And notice that Comey was notably silent on much of this, and couldn't manage to find enough stuff on Hillary to merit more
than a mild 'she was careless' with classified material reprimand.
The attention of the public had to be diverted somewhere, so why not towards Russia, and Trump had to be defeated, because
Trump is not a reliable charter member of the Swamp. No doubt he has had some unseemly forays into the swamp. But the swamp dwellers
see him on their very personal private level as a deadly enemy, a terminal threat. Recall Hillary's "we'll hang" prediction.
The Russia did it meme has been a desperate 'endless talking point' attempt to first, cover up and deny and divert attention
from pedogate and other satanic or seriously criminal stuff in Washington and among the elite, and second, to try to take down
Trump. He who may actually try to do the right thing; is not reliably under control by the PTB.
Hard to know what are the implications and will be the outcome of the appointment of the former FBI director Mueller, to investigate
a non event and other related stuff. Sounds like an infinite task. Maybe this new oddyssey will be featured in his obituary notice
some day, overshadowing his hitherto main claim to fame: presiding over the non-investigation of the treasonous 9/11 false flag.
It is to be feared that feeling the heat, the Donald might try to divert attention with some "action d'eclat" involving some invented
enemy's treat. He could very well sting NK or Iran. He could invent some "tonkin incident" in the persian Gulf... who knows?
Correct, and in fact just hours now he attacked pro-Syrian forces in Syria. So Trump attack Syria when he got problems with
neocon, anti-russian groups at home. Meanwhile ISIS cheer, along with EU, Nato and the Media, what a sick mind the western world
have.
Within 24 hours of terrorist supporter McCain coming out publicly about not supporting any impeachment of Trump, Trump bombs Syrian
and Iraqi anti-IS troops in Syria.
36 - "who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information?"
There were two interpreter-scribes in there, both of whom made a transcript of the conversations. Putin's offer to turn
over his was rebuffed, leading one to believe mischief is afoot on our side.
As to a Deputy-AG appointing a Special Counsel w/o presidential approval, there is a purported "Chinese wall" between the Office
of the A-G and POTUS to allow the A-G to act independently. One can only pray that the present appointee doesn't turn out to be
another Kenneth Starr.
The Dems are foolish retards, totally unredeemable.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | May 18, 2017 2:48:24 PM | 42
I am more optimistic about possibilities of redemption. For example, Enlightenment was a reaction to XVII century in Europe
that was spend on a series of very bloody religious wars, in proportion to population, XVII century was more bloody than XX. So
particular types of myopic and stupidity do not last forever. Second, it is not a particularly "partisan" condition. More like
zeitgeist, I am afraid.
Within 24 hours of terrorist supporter McCain coming out publicly about not supporting any impeachment of Trump, Trump bombs
Syrian and Iraqi anti-IS troops in Syria.
Posted by: terril | May 18, 2017 3:03:45 PM | 45
If only the special counsel would add war crimes to his investigation. If they can drift from real estate deals to veracity
of testimony about sexual contacts, war crimes are a bit more related to "improper foreign contacts". And, well, they are crimes.
What strikes me is how far GOP seems to be totally uninterested in defending Trump and = their party, basically they are making
GOP weaker and weaker. Some GOP seems to hate Trump even more than the Democrats!
Bob Mueller: Super Hero (Oh wow, modern history completely revised!) I awoke to Fake News stories this morning, about the former
FBI director, Robert Swan Mueller III: utterly impeccable, fantastic previous performance, in fact, a paragon of performance virtue!
-- ! (Does have quite the Deep State lineage, that Bob!)
The Nation is saved! Or, maybe not . . . .
To recap old Bob's performances: the FBI never solved the case of missing nuke secrets at Los Alamos, but certainly put poor
Mr. Wen Ho Lee through the ringer; they appear to have never investigated the valid allegations of former translator and whistleblower,
Sibel Edmonds --- who was put under an official gag order for years; multiple contrived "counterterrorist" shams, when poor inner-city
youths in Miami and Chicago (and elsewhere???) were set up --- then busted --- as probable terrorists; further deep penetration
and compromising of the FBI by Chinese intelligence organizations, etc., etc., etc.
OK, under Bob Mueller's watch, the notorious international crime lord, Martha Stewart, was jailed! Bravo, Bobby, and I'm sure
American slept more soundly with Ms. Stewart off the streets!
I recall the FBI, under the directorship of Mueller, as one severely dysfunctional outfit, i.e., business as usual. (Remember
the congressional after-action report on 9/11? Remember how FBI middle managers, Frasca and Maltbie, rejected all terrorist warnings
from field agents Sinder, Cowley and Williams, et al.? Remember how Frasca and Maltbie were then promoted???)
Yes, Bob Mueller does have a history of "public service" --- he was appointed chief of the DoJ's criminal division by President
George H.W. Bush when that BCCI investigation was getting closer and closer to the White House and old Bob made sure that it got
no closer!
And to insure that Treasury was in line during that period, Bush family cousin, John Walker, had been appointed the chief enforcement
officer there --- the same John Walker, later appointed as a judge, who would have the future FBI director, James Comey, clerking
for him.
Yes, Bob is the grandnephew of Richard Bissell, the CIA deputy director of plans, fired by President Kennedy before he was
assassinated in Dallas.
Yes, Bob's wife's family name is Cabell --- and it was deputy director of the CIA, Gen. Charles Cabell, who was also fired
by President Kennedy, and Cabell's brother, Earl Cabell, was indeed the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy had his brains splattered
on a Dallas street!
Bob grew up in a wealthy family, we are told, so he needn't have served in Vietnam in combat. Yes, Bob's family wealth was
on the Truesdale side of the family,that would be the same Truesdales who generations earlier were implicated in the bombing of
competitors' oil refineries for the Rockefeller family, and later ended up with a Rockefeller-previously-owned railroad. Typical
Horatio Alger-type story, no doubt. (I'm not suggesting anyone search into the family background of Bob --- those rich people
are all saints, after all!)
I cannot comment on his military service, although it would be interesting to hear any former Marines' comments who served
under him?
I recall that George W. Bush, who would late appoint Bob as the FBI director, was ahead of me a bit when he entered enlisted
basic training and his name was still a joke at Lackland AFB when I went through there: the politician's son who went through
enlisted basic training, then returned to Houston to miraculously, overnight, become an officer and jet pilot?!?!
Call me a radical progressive or call me a socialist --- but never, ever call me gullible and stupid! (And wasn't that Robert
Swan Mueller III? And wasn't there a chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, around 1962 or early 1963, named Swan,
when they lost millions of dollars there? Always wondered how the CIA paid for those assassinations in '63 and '68?)
The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with
the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors,
the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. This
is how the system has operated - Cheney ran it under Bush, Clinton ran it under Obama, it's all bureaucractic infighting. If you
read about Soviet history you see the same thing:
The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key
administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture,
education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been going on in the U.S. for awhile now.
Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current
situation. Pence, they figure, will be far more amenable to control. Even though Trump has been going along with the standard
Republican domestic agenda, he's just viewed as too unpredictable for their tastes. This is exactly how leadership selection in
the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at
this point.
I'm not concerned about it though, if the grossly corrupt federal government is locked up with this nonsense for the next four
years, that's fine. Perhaps state governments can step up and work together to solve problems while Washington gnaws its own belly,
that's about the best we can hope for.
What seems obvious to me is that the appointment of a special investigation defuses the issue for the moment and lets whatever
findings are allowed to be brought forth to occur at some timely future date as part of some other wag the dog event.
Thanks for that blistering bio. Seems most Deep State players have family ties to the cabal that hired General Butler to oust
FDR only to become the nascent CIA's cadre.
Trump being neutered by Washington and increasingly likely being taken down points out the incredible naievity of the populus
shouts of 'drain the swamp', 'term limits', etc. and the lone hero arriving in town like some stereotypical Western movie plot.
Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally
create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office.
Trump appears to be like someone curled up in a fetal position crying out to an angry mob beating him what else he needs to
do for them to stop.
Filling his admin with goldman sachs scum
Bombing Syria and helping out IS and al Qaeda for the neocons
Considering dual citizen garbage like Lieberman
and almost every other campaign promise he ever made. And while this is happening Trump supporters are still patting themselves
on the back with blather about the power of their 'memes'.
Posted by: pantaraxia | May 18, 2017 8:54:19 AM | 8
(Dutch anti-Trump smears)
The Dutch are just one of many tentacles of the Christian Colonial octopus/ Swamp Alliance. All of Christian Colonialism's
warmongering, banksterised, govt-toppling, movers and shakers (US, France, Germany, UK etc etc) are on board with the Get Trump
conspiracy. One thing they have in common is that they all (including Oz) get their "News" from the Jew-controlled MSM and are
anti-Palestinian and apologists for Jewish Colonialism in Palestine. The worsening facts-on-the-ground in "Israel" speak volumes
about Christian Colonialism's support for the Israel Project.
"Israeli"-dominated News is the de facto bullshit/ talking-point manufacturer & coordinator for The West.
I agree with somebody@4 and Julian@10, A special Council Investigation cannot limit its investigation to Trump and Associates,
a proper investigation will go where the evidence leads ...
Posted by: harrylaw | May 18, 2017 10:46:08 AM | 23
Investigations going where the evidence leads sounds important but is utter B.S. Every fact in the world is connected to every
other fact by some other intervening fact(s). A "proper investigation" begins with a suspicion that a particular act or omission
has been committed and the investigation answers whether that particular act or omission was in fact committed.
Language in the remit that authorizes an open-ended investigation is a mandate to find something to pin on the target of
the investigation, not an authorization for a "proper investigation." E.g., Kenneth Star's investigation began with a remit
to investigate the suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill
Clinton. But Star ultimately charged Bill Clinton only with perjury about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, something that
had only the most tenuous connection --- many would say no connection --- with his original remit.
Mueller's charge is to find something to pin on Trump, not to conduct a "proper investigation."
2 cents from someone who has done hundreds of investigation.
Trump is NOT a member of the club which is the Republican Hierarchy. Those are the real motherfuckers. They do not want him
to be prez and he is not welcome in their club. Neither is Trump an official errand boy for the Deep State (many among both parties
are official errand boys and girls). Again, Trump is not an official errand boy.
Trump has tried to appease the rotten motherfuckers. He really has. Trump is already ratfucking the middle class and the
poor in accordance with their prescription. Trump will keep on trying to please them (See Joe Lieberhebrewratbastard).
No matter, they strapped Pence to his back, BECAUSE they want a malleable errand boy who will DO Exactly as he is instructed.
They don't want Trump - second guessing them. No hesitation.
The Middle East must fall as quickly as possible in accordance with the Yinon Plan. And America must NOT have a revived middle
class. It cannot be made great again.
/~~~~~~~~~~
Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
Congressional Research Service
June 20, 2013 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf
Congress may also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the appointment of "independent counsels"
or "special prosecutors," as it did in title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that law relating
to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition
a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations
of criminal misconduct by certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government whose prosecution by
the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel"
provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors"
may be appointed by a three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So Robert S. Mueller is a "special counsel" but not a "special prosecutor" (I don't recall this mentioned here yet -- might
have missed it). This means that it would require an act of congress (and probably 2/3rds of Congress) to appoint a new "special
prosecutor". And so, they say, Trump could theoretically fire Mueller.
Things are not as they seem. IMO this is a carefully scripted plan by the Deep State to push Trump into Total War, not that
he was not inclined to do so anyways. His Russian connections lead to mafia ties so deep he could lose everything under Rico.
He knows this. Once the War begins the internet kill switch is thrown and the lights go out. Martial Law. Like in WWI, if you
criticize the war you go to jail. A Deep State Dream.
I never did believe Trump with his billions would want to be in this for the long haul. He resigns at some point, keeps his
fortune and the guy the Deep State and Dark Money (koch Brothers, etc) wanted all along takes over (Pence).
Trump was a Trojan Horse to get the Koch Brothers control. They probably had something on Trump to force him to run
and avoid Rico charges. He lied his way into office , got some help from Comey and a mole in the DNC who has been taken out (blamed
on Putin) and now will play out the script. Lets face it, we've all been had. Trump had Comey ousted for show and he will live
the good life with a job well done. Deep State controlled MSM will have a new war to cover and maybe even a show of impeachment
hearings before or during the war. Great for ratings and advertisements especially if they can shut down the alternative media
on the internet which Martial Law or new laws being wriitten will allow. MIC and international Banks will be rolling in the
dough. Everyone wins except those caught in the carnage down below (bottom 99%) and of course those nations we obliterate with
Shock & Awe on Steroids (nukes)
They will go on and on and on until they can find something to impeach Trump on. I with agree with comments that now Israel appears
to have pitched in the outlook for Trump does not look good. The flip side of this is how Trump's deplorables will react to the
taking down of their man. The ongoing events have awakened and will awaken significant numbers of previously asleep people. People
who are very angry, many of whom have guns. If these people start rioting the whole edifice will shake and anything could happen.
If they don't riot the anger could find its outlet in mass targetted killings of the 1% by individuals or groups that are very
difficult to track.
Mercouris at The Duran is almost certainly correct that nothing will be found and there might be an attempt to shut down the
investigation, but the Clintonists like their vozhd won't accept the results and this stupidity will continue. Who says Trump
is a bad loser? Clinton and the Clintonists who still can't accept that she lost.
Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally
create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office. Posted by: terril | May 18, 2017 5:37:02 PM
| 59
More precisely, Trump may have as any lackeys, well-wishing hacks (like Bannon), doting family members as he wants, but "institutional
memory" has layers of aristocracy (born to expert meritorious service) and those who earned her spurs with aristocratic mentors
and got accepted. There was a time when Bill Clinton was a literal hillbilly to our aristocrats, and Hillary, a girl from a good
family who unfortunately strayed and married the rascal. But with hard work, quick wit, and good eye for the newest fashion (making
liberalism more centric) he got accepted. The case of Obama is similar.
One can sneer at the aristocracy and "first generation meritocrats", but this is not XVIII-th century and the government is,
by necessity, quite complex, and experts are necessary. If you send a non-expert to a key department, or to Presidential office,
without good vision and good advise, he will get digested or spit out.
To some degree, the bureaucrats are apolitical and can follow the politicians. You want more reasonable penalties in the federal
court? We can do it. You want to push them up to the max for your favorite categories -- we can do it. You want to squeeze financial
wizards who make the economy moving (some people may call it fraud, but isn't it a form of capital formation?), the digestive
juices of the system starts flowing. And so on.
Trump does not have any experts or thinkers of note that do not belong to the "meritocrats", i.e. the Washington establishment.
Bannon is perhaps a thinker, but hardly of note. I even doubt that Trump has any good instincts, except that at occasion he had
the childish gift of noticing that this or that has "no cloths". But the next thing a child does is throwing a tantrum for some
petty reason.
@75 vv 'They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.'
so true. but we'll still be here. our sheer numbers ensure that we will survive. i think it would be good if we worked together
to prevent the reboot of the same old broken system after its blue screen flashes at death, just like a m$ machine. we know now
exactly what will reboot if we don't.
"Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest
clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class."
VietnamVet
I do not know how highly rated the staff was, but it was sufficiently high. If the opponent has fourth-rate staff, it would
be wasteful to use anything better than third-rate. Figuring what gave rise to the deplorable is a wasted effort, sociologist
differ, and in politics the "root causes" matter only a little. And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites
and posturing. Granted, this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best technique
is based on so-called wedge issues. A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center",
mostly clueless undecided voters. Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the adversaries
to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless in your direction. Wash, repeat.
Mueller is only involved in one, the first ""An FBI counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
elections and possible collusion in this effort by the Trump campaign""
By focusing his energy on the outrage and insult of this witchhunt, Trump may have painted himself into a corner from which
all escape routes involve loss of face and a his most loyal base of support ... for example, releasing his tax returns/sources
of income ...
His only apparent silver lining is that Flynn and Rice (although details are unclear) appear to be not-cooperating and declining
to appear ... whether they will actually commit follow through and risk "contempt of congress" charges remains to be seen... but
I suspect there's hidden agenda (like an immunity deal) rather than some principled stand at work.
Wow what a show. Faux populist Obama was also politically weakened by crazy opposition. Faux populist Obama was also forced FORCED!
to do the establishment's bidding.
Could Trump be the Republican Obama? Are we all falling for essentially the same con? Few can wrap their heads around that
possibility. Yet ...
Sanders was a sheepdog.
Hillary's campaign was lackluster.
Comey (who protected Hillary) acted to ensure a Trump victory.
Trump has now bombed Syria twice and will be feted in KSA.
Such investigations NEVER stick to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further.
That doesn't necessarily mean it'll be Trump's dirt that washes up. If Seth Rich is proven to have leaked the emails to Wikileaks,
the Russian hacking narrative evaporates, and the Ukrainian collusion to manipulate the election from the Democrat side
is legitimately within the ambit of the investigation. We may yet see the Democrat Party prosecuted as a continuing criminal enterprise,
and none too soon.
@71 Petri Krohn,
They describe the capabilities of US Internet advertisers, even worse post-net-neutrality, and project it onto Russia.
Their desperation reeks.
Obama was never in the "opposition", Trump is indeed in the opposition but the question is if he have the strength to stand
up to these sick people in deepstate/msm. With attacks on Syria etc it doesnt look good but there is no comparsion to the wimp
Obama.
Just when you thought things couldn't get any crazier in this Looking Glass War, with all the hysteria over Trump's ultimate unpardonable
sin - the revelation of an Israeli secret, this comes out (fwiw):
"Jordan, not Israel, was likely the original source of secret intelligence information given by US President Donald Trump to
the Russians, the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials
The sources said the intelligence that Trump shared with the Russians came mainly from Jordanian spies. Jordan, they said,
has developed human intelligence resources with agents on the ground, including some who have infiltrated militia groups . When
it comes to ISIL, unlike Jordan, Israel relies on its electronic surveillance collection and its intelligence sharing-arrangement
with its Arab partners"
@84 pantaraxia.. i thought jordan was working for isis/israel, err i mean the usa.... i can't tell the difference.. times of israel
- that is a reliable source, if ever there was one, lol...
Pence is up to his eyeballs in this sh*t & is likely to be taken down as well. Wonder if Ryan will still be speaker once this
stuff comes down (assuming it does)...
@ 85 james
re: times of israel - that is a reliable source, if ever there was one, lol...
"the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials" Which
part of this sourcing in the article did you not understand? The more interesting questions are what is the purpose of releasing
this information by a US puppet, who colluded in the release and how it plays into the 'Trump betrayed Israel' hysteria.
I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote.
My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a 'faux populist model of governance'.
Elements of this model are:
1. A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she intends to capture a future
payoff for himself. They signal their willingness via:
> forgiving past abuses ("no-drama Obama"; Trump's not prosecuting Hillary)
> constraining their own power: Obama's bi-partisanship (termed "11-dimensional chess" by critics), Trump's brashness/recklessness
that gives his opponents fodder ("tapes" on Comey, etc.)
2. Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable hands' by TPTB.
3. crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists. I call them "enforcers".
By crazy opposition, I mean
> Obama: 'birthers' and smears like "socialist muslim".
Trump: Russia probe; smears like "the new Hitler"
4. apologists that take as a given that the President wants to fulfill the promises, both spoken and unspoken, that he has
made to the people.
@88 pantaraxia.. i don't know that it matters either way... it is only interesting from the point of view of further obfuscation
being created and moving away for the central fact that trump can share whatever info he wants to share.. now the irony here as
i understand it, is nothing he shared was all that earth shattering - but no matter - witch hunt on trump must continue!
in what's termed the second of a series, someone named jonathan marshall makes the crucial point about the various 'lobbies' in
the usofa ... How China Lobby
Shaped America
In 1949, two members of Congress called for an investigation of the lobby's "brazen power." Rep. Mike Mansfield, a Montana
Democrat who would later become Senate majority leader, accused Nationalist Chinese officials - who had fled the mainland for
Taiwan that year in the wake of the communist revolution - of diverting U.S. aid to fund political propaganda in the United
States.
Ironically, a timely dispensation of $800,000 from Nationalist Chinese officials in Taiwan to their New York office financed
a successful campaign to squelch that proposed investigation.
... they are self-funding operations. once the money starts to flow a portion is set aside for kickbacks, bribes, and efforts
to protect the mainstream funding itself. it is truly a parasitic operation that feeds on the fruits of its effort on others'
behalf, and thus strengthens itself, becoming a stand-alone operation.
there are tens of thousands of people in ac/dc working in these operations, looking out for taiwan's interests, israel's interests,
making sure that russia stays demonized ... all the various corporate issues ... but at base and before all else, looking out
for number one.
a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government in favor of the lucrative process
of policy misdirection itself.
with a gang like that at the core of our government what, as they say, could go wrong?
Y'all may remember that Trump's domestic business dealings had some Mob connections. I think Wm Engdahl, among other, reported
on this. Well, if you google Trump and Russian Mafia you will see an entirely different idea as to what this attack on Trump might
be about. I've not studied it, take no position. If I WERE interested, it's what I'd be looking at.
At this time, it seems to me a better use of one's time to avoid allowing the media to direct your time and attention, and
instead to focus on deepening your knowledge of the international institutions' agenda for bringing about the last few steps to
the NWO.
On 1 January 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - adopted
by world leaders in September 2015 at an historic UN Summit - officially came into force. ... The SDGs, also known as Global
Goals, build on the success of the
They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
"... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates
of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and
according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia
investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document
requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far
Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee
subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.
According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between
June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that
period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia
or Russians."
While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information
to investigators by last Friday's deadline.
"I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.
A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested
in cooperating with the Senate investigation.
NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with
the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas
for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.
Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported
citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin
would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after
misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.
This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?
I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three
administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed
to the DNC or RNC.
If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.
My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions
and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?
Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between
the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has
become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks
informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the
Washington Post reported . ..."
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC
staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017
A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - -
special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - -
Russia
should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become
the focus of
conspiracy theorists .
In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - -
proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump
confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails
to WikiLeaks.
Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington.
In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - -
insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the
area, according
to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.
"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety,
told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that
doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."
On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with "
high confidence " in a public
report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks,
which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary
Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.
This week, the Russian embassy in the UK
shared the conspiracy on Twitter,
CNN reported
, calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers
to take notice".
The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract
its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family
said
in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the
world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".
On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently
assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks
something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.
"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians,
it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.
"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."
Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact
with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that
he did not have any evidence himself.
"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told
CNN.
The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case,
the
Washington Post reported .
"... It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my main concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over more of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has prevailed for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope of people like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly betrayed, though. ..."
"... And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful enemies are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible not to back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the literally absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile comes along. ..."
I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us
to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can
still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous.
It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my
main concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over
more of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has
prevailed for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope
of people like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly
betrayed, though.
And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful
enemies are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible
not to back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the
literally absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile
comes along.
I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to
L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can
still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous.
It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my main
concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over more
of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has prevailed
for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope of people
like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly betrayed,
though.
And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful enemies
are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible not to
back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the literally
absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile comes
along.
Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply
to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
"... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
"... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
"... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
"... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
"... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
"... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
"... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
"... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
"... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with
a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the
case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude,
inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already
emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered
a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he
had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.
As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin
to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select
military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to
November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered,
celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only
to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States,
with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic,
and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their
labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.
Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional
excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently
receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters
to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United
States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans
expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it
another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the
United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in
the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect
the U.S. approach to doing so?
2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's
finest. It's also far and away the
most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities
to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way,
why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives?
Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere
in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today
garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless
of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant
lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this
practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host"
American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve
in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to
cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard
camouflage a growing
gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system,
based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion
and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president
of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade
by decade, Congress has
abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to
do (or simply
stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby
become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis
of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered
considerable
embarrassment , so much so that presidents
foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination
business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence
of names on the current presidential
hit list , euphemistically
known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests
(or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's
present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion
here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the
longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War
II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on
having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an
oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are
far greater than was
once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American
national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism : Each year
terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do
auto accidents
, drug overdoses , or even
lightning strikes
. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence
over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger
numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians
or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that
question?
12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the
pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by
indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers
expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of
creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent
of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America
Great Again. The U.S. ranks
number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies
Saudi Arabia and
Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product
$20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic
product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American
taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford
to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were
Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should
the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American
values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator . It
supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers
treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values
coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, "
whole and free ," its
population
and
economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But
how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in
Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom
have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart
from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric
detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India?
Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence
still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope
for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar
modernization
of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other
nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's
sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S.
military forces to
scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are
obsolete
and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray
beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should
these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international
law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard
it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to
reverse their actions on the
rare occasions when
U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since
the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians
in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often
on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the
killing of Germans, Japanese,
Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans
accept Pentagon
claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental,
whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or
the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over
or ignore altogether the
noncombatants that Saudi forces (with
U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights,
members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of
action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation
to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking
order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others
or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance,
Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the
U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally
denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?
Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed
and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?
And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or
debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing
of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the
national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery
of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself
is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters
sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth
requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the
MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure
or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."
Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.
Propaganda and the Public Mind
Necessary Illusions
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In
a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography
and resist censorship?"
Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour
involved in inadequately addressing these topics.
stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)
elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there
is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.
The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues.
In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition
makes you an outsider.
The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you
live your life. You become an example for others to follow.
Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think
like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely
bring this about, one way or another.
Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated
over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.
" But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"
We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge,
Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy
Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.
The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by
the deep state; then you know what not to believe.
I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject
to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for
40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent
and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support
his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead
we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.
Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and
its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their
graves with laughter.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the
ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news,
that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president
has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a
nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior
ushered in by DTrump??
Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.
On this one, we've had a bit of progress.
"8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict?
When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified
Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little
parachute thingies because they are terrified --
Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for
terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.
This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.
However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report
that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies
are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing
was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT,
and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia.
She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits
did everything else.
As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when
the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.
Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy
for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal
political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic,
yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.
Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve
much use of sign language.
An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name
on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"
Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although
I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..
fresno dan
After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April,
the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis"
that they would be "annihilated".
Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government
claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.
the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military
equipment and tactics ..
Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the
biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???
how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the
mother of all bombs???
low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers
would go crazy!
The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it
was used.
Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome
than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before
and after pics would be identical.
A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon
Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?
DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came
up with..
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong
The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since
anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low,
because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant
body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in
the Vietnam War.
I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather
than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.
It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet
him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care
of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)
I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country
Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants
ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up
the remaining ISIS fighters.
Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress
and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace
in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone
call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say
that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested
something like this.
However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy.
The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect
of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption.
When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent
experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis
of the economists at these agencies.
"Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking
and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.
It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence
services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now
if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate
and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing?
Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our
institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?
The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.
The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe
a trillion/year)
A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout
much of the USA,.
I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting
to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.
The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.
One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.
Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings
Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.
Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon,
General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.
One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.
One could posit there many other similar families.
It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.
These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility
for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the
other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially
a script that has written out all the huge problems.
I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the
framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy
and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the
true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.
A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.
the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting.
the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.
US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and
fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.
in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones
without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt
would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland
If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying
the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge
of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and
minds.
In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their
fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess
at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the
US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out
so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again.
Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind
of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.
Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration
of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.
Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States
has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.
The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness
and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when
they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany
- was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were
afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally
controlled or remain a US monopoly.
Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting.
In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American
exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually
assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront
how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.
I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each
one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program,
then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative
reports by journalists also.
However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?
It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important
issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance
exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business
is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.
Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either?
Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting
at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli
money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.
Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer:
We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.
And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla
warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods
are manufactured, transported and trafficked.
An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd
like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and
we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending
pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's
the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.
Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading
' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right
) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles,
liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions
irrelevant.
Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized
after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline
personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up
our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his
description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's
father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle
personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before
being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although
there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security
laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that
new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against
two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election
he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the
US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique
that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis.
Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government
under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against
demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations
that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics
were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were
seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police.
In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs .
His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms
at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable
observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed
demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often
the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups,
which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other
opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in
order then to blame the government.'"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international
war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in
Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing
and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is
the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health
insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but
he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. ..."
"... Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act! ..."
"... There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964. ..."
"... It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm. ..."
"... Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general. ..."
"... The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism. ..."
"... They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party. ..."
"... But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt. ..."
"... Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)? ..."
"... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous. ..."
One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly
named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic
churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment.
Or whatever. But impeachment.
Every week, I think things can't get any crazier-the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can't get any higher, the
fever has to break-and every week it's worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That
just gives us more reasons to defend him.
I don't even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have
said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it's basically nothing.
I've been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every
single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment-every single thing has
been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.
Remember
Barack Obama's hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, "After my election I have more
flexibility"? [ Obama tells Russia's
Medvedev more flexibility after election , Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today's media would react
if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year's campaign? Can you imagine ? I can't.
We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing-most important of all, halting the demographic transformation
that's tugging us out of the
Anglosphere
into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.
Those big, important things aren't getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in
the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.
Sample, from today's press, concerning
Michael Flynn , the
national security advisor President Trump fired for
supposedly lying to the Vice President
about a phone conversation he'd had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was
just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word "substantive,"
but Trump fired him anyway.
Well, here's Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn's activities:
Flynn's legal troubles come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the
Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf
of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the
more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.
Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the
Lobbying Disclosure Act!
High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus -- This
must not stand!
And then, the whole silly
Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:
Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia's propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow
at the network's annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before
and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.
So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They're covering for him! Let's have a purge of the military! Special
prosecutor!
Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let's have another one!
You could make an argument, I suppose-I don't myself think it's much of an argument, but you could make it-that Russia's
a military threat to Europe.
Once
again , with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia's and a GDP ten times greater.
Europe's two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can't defend
themselves against Russia, there's something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show
me it's in our national interest to fix it, which you can't.
At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement.
A Russian hegemony might at
least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from
Africa and the
Middle East . It doesn't look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.
That aside, American citizens are free to visit Russia and talk to Russians, including Russian government employees, just as free
as we are to talk to Australians, Brazilians, or Cambodians. As the
Lion said on
his blog :
Do liberals who are making a big deal about the Trump-Russia thing really believe that no one involved in a presidential campaign
should have ever talked to anyone from another country? How would an administration ever conduct any foreign policy if no one
in the administration has ever left the United States or ever talked to a foreigner?
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom Flynn had that December phone conversation, is, says the New York Post , "a
suspected Kremlin spy." [ Michael Flynn
won't honor subpoena to provide documents, By Bob Fredericks, May 18, 2017] Is he? Why should I care?
I bet ol' Sergey does all the spying he can. So, I'm sure, do the ambassadors of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Botswana. That's
what ambassadors do. That's what we do in their countries. Does anyone not know this?
"A Kremlin spy"? What is this, 1957 ?
Russia's just a country . And as our own James Kirkpatrick has pointed out
here at VDARE.com , it's a country run by people who hate us-the American people- less than our own elites do.
As James also points out, if it's interference in our elections that bothers you, consider what Mexico's been doing for the last
forty years: encouraging mass immigration of its own underclass into the U.S.A., lobbying through its consulates and Spanish-language
TV channels for voter registration, using Mexican-owned outlets like the New York Times to demonize and discredit national
conservatives.
The founder of Christianity scoffed at those who strain at
a gnat but swallow a camel. In the matter of foreign interference in our elections, the gnat here is Russia; the camel is Mexico.
Our media and opinion elites have swallowed the camel.
Unless, of course, just down the road a few months, there's going to be a hysteria-storm about Mexican interference in our elections.
My advice would be: Don't hold your breath.
All the shouting and swooning is just the rage of a dispossessed class-our political class.
Our political and government class, I think I should say. There are tens of thousands of federal functionaries who have
never stood for election to anything, but whose loyalty is to the political Establishment. Great numbers of these people settled
in to their comfortable seats during the eight years of Barack Obama's administration; so to the degree that they care about party
affiliation, they prefer the Democratic Party.
Washington, D.C. voted 91 percent for Mrs.
Clinton last November.
Obama Holdovers,
Vacant Posts Still Plague Trump - Administration housecleaning is long overdue to get agenda in motion, end damaging leaks,
by Thomas Richard, LifeZette.com, May 18, 2017] Draining the swamp means getting rid of those people. They should be
fired -en masse, in their hundreds and thousands, and marched out the office door by security guards before they can trash files.
Still, a big majority of federal politicians are helping to drive the hysteria; and their rage against Trump is, as they say in
D.C., bipartisan. Senator John McCain
told CNN on Tuesday that President Trump's troubles are,
quote , "of Watergate size and
scale."
There's a grain of truth in that. The
Watergate affair was a
media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment
elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by
Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's
bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
So yes: When the political and media establishment try to drive from office a president they dislike, it is kinda like Watergate.
It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them
last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing
too much outward enthusiasm.
Last August, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, I reproduced a remark Peggy Noonan made in
one of her columns.
Here's the remark again,
quote :
From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from
theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.
Has there been any reflection among GOP leaders in the nine months since, about the meaning of Trump's victory? Not much that
I can see.
Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field
of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us
voted for him in the general.
Does the GOP get this? Have they learned anything from it? Not that I can see.
With some exceptions, of course. GOP elder statesman Pat Buchanan spelled it out in an interview with the Daily Caller
this week:
The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state.
They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy,
the open borders and multiculturalism.
If they can just pull off an impeachment, the Republican party bosses believe, and install some donor-compliant drone in the White
House, then we sixty-three million Trump voters will smack our foreheads with our palms and say: "Jeez, we are so dumb! Why did we
let ourselves get led astray like that? Why didn't we vote for
Marco Rubio or
Jeb Bush in the primaries, as you wise elders wanted us to? We're sorry! We promise to follow your advice in future!"
Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold
swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal
legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported,
comes back in ? Why no request to
Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the
visa lottery and
restrictions on chain migration?
When do we start testing the
constitutionality
of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in
NATO ? Why are we still at war
with North Korea ( which technically we are
, since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)?
I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the
first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But,
says Ann , she's
getting nervous.
"... I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. ..."
"... Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done "for the good of the country" and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process. ..."
"... Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest. ..."
"... "Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his troops this problem would never exist." Yes–a leader must *inspire* loyalty, not demand it over dinner at the White House. ..."
National-security officials may see themselves as patriots, but their methods set a
dangerous precedent.
Back in my time in the CIA, there were two places in the headquarters building one could
go that were free speech zones-places where it was safe to vent about senior management
without necessarily being admonished or even reported. They were the Historical
Intelligence Collection room off the library, where no one ever went to look at the
books, and the office supplies storage room in the basement. The supplies room had a lot
of dark corners and concealing shelves where it was possible to be anonymous and it was
completely unsupervised in the belief that true-blue CIA officers would never stoop to
taking even a single pencil more than was actually needed to get the job done.
I don't know if those rooms still exist, but I sometimes
think of them when the subject of government conspiracies come up. I have this vision of
two or three conspirators huddled in the corner behind the staplers back in 1975
discussing how one would go about eliminating the likes of Senator Frank Church, who at
that time was heading a major congressional investigation into CIA improprieties.
If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine
that the
Washington Post
would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious
and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters
about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order
to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy
involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with
explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago.
Two months ago, I would have dismissed as fantasy any
thoughts of a conspiracy based in America's national security agencies to bring down
Donald Trump. But now I am not so sure. Many of my friends who are former intelligence
officers are increasingly asking questions. It is worth pointing out that none of us are
fans of what the White House has been doing and saying-quite the contrary. Still,
alerting the country to concerns over what might be a developing soft coup orchestrated
by the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to nullify the results of a national
election in no way equates to trying to protect Donald Trump and his uncouth and
ill-informed behavior. It is rather a defense of the Constitution.
Donald Trump
said
on
Wednesday that "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American
history!" He might be right. He was referring to Deputy Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein's
appointment
of
the highly-respected Robert Mueller as independent counsel to investigate "any links
and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation."
Trump's bombast puts everyone but his most tone-deaf
supporters on edge, but there are two points that he has been making repeatedly that are
essential to any understanding of what is going on. First, the investigation into Russia
and the Trumpsters has been a high priority at FBI and also in Congress for nearly a
year. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that anyone broke any law or even that
someone did something wrong. Second, and more importantly, the vilification of Trump and
Russia has been driven by a series of leaks that come from the very top of the national
security apparatus, leaks that appear not to have been seriously investigated.
This involvement of FBI and CIA in the campaign,
whether inadvertently or by design, was particularly evident in the various reports that
surfaced and were leaked to the press during the campaign and right up to the
inauguration. The leaks of that type of information, to include technical intelligence
and Special Access Program "codeword" material, require top-level access as well as the
ability to arrange clandestine contacts with major players in the media, something far
beyond the reach of most employees at CIA or the FBI.
Similar leaks have been appearing since that time. I
confess to finding Monday's
detailed account
of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included
corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was
actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy
is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript
after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably
assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump's own National
Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.
Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again,
revealing that
"Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump's campaign were in contact with
Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during
the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race." That sort of information had to
come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but
even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been
recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.
The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and
media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the
candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking
was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a
narrative that the president has described as a "made-up thing," a view that I share.
All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by
inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was
Russian interference in the election.
Sometimes the hysteria over Russia produces
over-the-top stories in the mainstream media, including last week's completely
speculative piece wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had
sought to sneak
a recording device
into the White House during his White House visit. It was the type of tale that might
have been inspired by a leak from someone in the National Security Council who
personally observed the context of the meeting and was able to provide corroborating
details.
Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming groupthink,
it has been repeated
ad nauseam
by people like myself that no actual evidence has been produced to support any of the
claims being made about Russia and Trump. There is more evidence that the White House
was penetrated by Ankara-through the good services of Michael Flynn-than by Moscow, but
Congress has not called for an investigation into
Turkey's lobbying
.
Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even
speculating that
the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the
DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians.
His concern arises from the recent
WikiLeaks revelation
that the CIA had developed cyberwarfare capabilities to do just that.
McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA
Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into
Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice,
while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former
Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan's absence
is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the
Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and
has also been
plausibly linked
to "encouraging" British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn.
I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the
top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has
wanted to do so for quite some time.
If that is true, I believe that they have been
operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional
conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the
members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they
can to keep Trump off balance.
Their program is simple: convince the nation that the
president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor,
which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for
impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done "for the
good of the country" and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake
made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media,
which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely
on board with the process.
Saving the country from Trump is certainly an
attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of
former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see
themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they
are usingis far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft
coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for
the National Interest.
I suggest that there are too many big egos involved to keep any 'conspiracy'
quiet for long. Someone would post a status update on Facebook, with a photo
tagging them all in their cloaks, brandishing daggers.
Nothing could be more obvious than that the particular anonymous high level
Deep State bureaucrats and the media that quotes them are attempting a coup.
Many of us have suspected we have been progressively disenfranchised, both
economically and politically, by elite special interests for some time. If this
oligarchy now get the coup they want, they will then have proven to most of us
that democracy in America is a sham, no more than a cynical rigged show to
deceive us that we the people are in control.
No conspiracy is required. Trump went out of his way to antagonize the staff at
CIA headquarters when he visited. We don't need to discuss how the 'Orange
Blob' (As I understand he is frequently referred to within the FBI) antagonized
the FBI.
Leaks are endemic in DC. To have gone out of his way to antagonize
the intelligence and security apparatus is the sign of a dangerous incompetent.
I expect the agencies to back to their old tricks / policies with respect to
senate approvals – providing useful (damaging) background information on
candidates they do not approve of to political opponents in the Senate.
But no conspiracy is required at all – just bureaucrats with information
using it in what they take to be their organizational interest.
It has been so for a long time. You get less of it with competent leadership
– and more with incompetent leadership.
fascinating stuff. which begs the question, where is the betting line or
over/under for civil servants (especially those employed in the
intelligence/national security space), between a sworn oath to protect and
defend the Constitution (via a 'conspiracy', which could also be described as a
necessary and authorized 'operation'), and an a POTUS who despite his similar
oath f office, lacks the capacity (legal, intellectual, emotional) ability to
honor his oath? frankly, I'll take the "deep state" underdogs and the points.
If you really are concerned that the Intelligence Agencies are leaking to
damage Trump then Trump needs to take advantage of his own resources and be
more open about his information to take away their power.
He needs to
release his tax returns. This is incredibly important, and if he is hiding
something then the IC has leverage in circumstantial evidence. If there is
nothing there, then they lose power.
Be in full support of any investigation. Let Flynn and others from the
White House speak to Congress. Again, the leaks have no power if you already
release information.
Instead of putting out obvious lies like Spicer did on January 21st or
misdirecting information, be as open as possible on basic things. Talk to the
American people like the adults they are.
Stop Tweeting. Full stop. No more, it just leads to bad things.
The leaks work because knowledge is power, and this Administration is
thinking that by not giving a straight answer they can control the knowledge,
which is completely not true.
Many smart, good, fair people have such a visceral dislike of Trump that they
lose their virtues and succumb to hysteria. But it's worse than that. Blindly
supporting a soft coup is morally tantamount to treason.
I know it's hard to
swallow–because you hate Donald Trump so much–but it's true.
"Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the
Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers
who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as
great patriots."
They must be out of touch with reality. If they were patriots they would
have got rid of Bush II and Cheney before the Iraq War of 2003! This is just to
keep the American Empire on its present course of decline. There is no sign of
anything noble going on here.
I think the majority of the so called conspiracies are individuals or small
groups operating on their own with a common goal without any active cooperation
mainly because they know talking about it will lead to them facing greater
problems later on.
The majority of the leakers are likely people that
honestly believe they are doing the right thing and act on it. It is not like
people go into the Intelligence or Law Enforcement because they are
anti-authority. They are normally men and women with a dedication to the United
States and its principles so when they feel other are violating that they act.
For many Trump while he is the President fails to act as such and not only that
has called in to question the competency of these people and their loyalty.
After having read "The Art of the Deal" I am surprised he has not tried to be
more vicious to these people. Trump has a strong streak of personal loyalty and
from what I gather only believes in it. The Men and Women that make up the Law
Enforcement and Intelligence do not give up personal loyalty to one politician
or one faction they are loyal to the United States. This is something a man who
has only ever worked in family business does not seem capable to understand.
His experience and training always taught him if you work for him you are
suppose to be loyal to him. That is not how these organizations operate. The
"deep state" is more reflective of our own polarization along party and
ideologue lines. The fact an organization can people that work both sides seems
crazy to many that only operate in left or right no middle. I in sad to say the
longer I am alive the more I think the draft is needed not because of the need
for soldiers but rather for the propose of forcing people to work in an
organization that is dedicated to a common goal with individuals from all over
the nation with different beliefs and experiences. Otherwise we are just going
to have people that are stuck and leading to further divisions. As a note I
have never served in the military my jr year of college I received an injury
that disqualified me from service. I attended though one of the six senior
military colleges with the intention of serving.
Philip Giraldi "I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of
the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has
wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have
been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year."
Decades-long Princeton/NYU Professor of Russian studies Stephen Cohen agrees
with Mr. Giraldi's assessment (May 15, Fox):
If you had asked me a few days ago "What's the number one threat to the
United States today?" I would have said, "International terrorism." Today I
would say, "It's this assault on President Trump." Because it's been going on a
year. And can we be clear? What he's being accused of is treason. This has
never happened in America – that there's a Russian agent in the White House.
And we've had a whole array of allegations: From Putin helped him get in the
White House, to his associates are doing wrong things with Russians, that Flynn
did something wrong – his former National Security Advisor – did something
wrong in talking to the Russian ambassador. There's no evidence that there was
any wrong-doing and, indeed, Flynn should have talked to the Russian
ambassador. That was his job. So, this is beyond belief now and has become – by
this I mean this assault on Trump and his loyalty – this has become a national
security threat to us in-itself There has long been in Washington a powerful –
let's call it The Fourth Branch of Government, the intelligence services, who
have opposed any rapprochement or cooperation with Russia. Remember, in 2016
President Obama worked out a deal with President Putin for military cooperation
in Syria. He said he was going to share intelligence with Russia – just the way
Trump and the Russians were supposed to do the other day. Our Department of
Defense said it wouldn't share intelligence. And a few days later, they killed
Syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end of that. So, we
can ask: "Who is making our foreign policy in Washington today?" Are there
really three branches of government, or is there a fourth branch of government
– these intel services? What we know as a fact is that Obama tried – not very
hard, but he tried – for a military alliance with Putin in Syria against
terrorism, and it was sabotaged by the Department of Defense and its allies in
the intelligence services. Trump says, he said on the campaign trail: "Wouldn't
it be great to cooperate with Russian?" My answer is: It would be great. And
Trump seems to want that to happen. But he's being thwarted. Every time he gets
close, we get a new leak, of a story.
I'm certain that everyone who launched a coup in a third world country thought
they were patriots as well. The comment 'if he has nothing to hide is
chilling' because it ignores the nature of these attacks. These are not really
leaks, they are anonymous hit and run attacks designed to leave an impression
in a way that is impossible to refute.
Some examples
1. CIA leak, 'portions of the Russian Dossier have been confirmed'. Perhaps
some trivial facts were confirmed but people will think of the sensational
parts of the dossier.
2. Mattis flat out denies that 'methods and sources' were given to the
Russians but the leaker gives specifics to the MSM. Perhaps the leaker, knowing
the topic of the meeting went above and beyond knowing that the WH is not going
to give out a full transcript of the meeting.
These guys are playing a very dangerous game. This is the same CIA group
that is arming rebels in Syria. They know better than us. Anyone who questions
them is a traitor in their eyes.
Paul Craig Roberts has an article up that I think should
be read. As I do not know if this site allows the posting of links or even
article names, I will provide neither.
Philip Giraldi "Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even
speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC,
leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the
Russians. His concern arises from the recent Wiki Leaks revelation that the CIA
had developed cyber warfare capabilities to do just that. McGovern, like
myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been
summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI
Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice
Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan's
absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most
closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to
fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to
'encouraging' British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael
Flynn."
Brennan was chosen by Obama to head the CIA and was sworn in as
Director on March 8, 2013. At the swearing-in ceremony, rather than placing his
hand on a Bible, Brennan chose to place his hand on an original draft of the
Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations
on it, dating from 1787. Somewhat worthy of note is the fact that the 1787
draft of the Constitution does not contain the Bill of Rights.
But Obama White House Press spokesman Josh Earnest said Brennan requested
that particular draft of the US Constitution because he "wanted to reaffirm his
commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the
CIA"
The scandal in Washington, DC is profound to be explained by petty
considerations. It requires metaphysical language.
The sad fact is that
We-the-People were unable to keep our Republic as Benjamin Franklin advised us
to do. Founding Fathers had tried hard to protect Republic against mob. The
last thing they could imagine was that mentality of instant gratification that
define mob will morph into top echelon of ruling class. If history provide any
lessons the first was given by Moses when he descended from Mount Sinai with 10
commandments. That lesson was repeated multiple times with the same results.
History is littered with faded memories of failed empires, which reduced
multidimensional colored world to lust for Golden Calf. Under no circumstances
the US will be exception for signs of decay are everywhere.
I am also sure that majority of commentators on this "conservative" site are to
busy with trivia to comprehend reality they are facing in very near future.
How is it that the leakers are not identified, fired and prosecuted? When there
are five people in a room when a secret is told, and that secret gets leaked,
one of those five people are guilty. If you can't tell which one, fire them
all. Are there no detectives in D.C.? It ain't rocket science.
I think we should be reminded , as we witness this circus. Those thousands who
work in the swamp, are experts at what they do. I would admit Trump needs to
slack off his rhetoric, but I have to hand it to the Democrats. Getting Trump
impeached or to resign is their new platform to get the ruling class back in
the saddle.
@Dan Green, maybe so, but the real question is, why did Americans elect a POTUS
who is NOT an "expert" at what the POTUS does? Deep State, Establishment, or
whatever you title you choose, one does not survive in a swamp without
mastering or adapting the skills necessary to this may sound silly, survive in
a swamp. This is the difference between fake news and real news. This is the
difference between television and reality television. And finally, this is the
difference between a true populist, and a self-described 'billionaire' populist
– who inherited millions and grew it (sic) to billions via debt and bankruptcy.
None of this should surprise Americans, progressive or 'deplorable'. It
certainly did not surprise those sworn to defend the Constitution.
The leaks are selective dirty trick mountain-out-of-molehill spoil sport
partisan cry baby sore loser propaganda. If they are successful in
circumventing our democracy, they and all of us will reap the whirlwind.
I hope so! We need a good shake-up in DC to save TV ratings and sell papers.
Can also add all the advertising dollars available with media clicks. And the
hostility and deadlock has to continue so we can slip through some wonderful
legislation to take away more wealth and rights from the dumb sheep on both
sides. I am sure NetFlix or Amazon or some other Cable channel can't wait for
the rights to this. "Orange is the New Nixon"
They got it figured out to where they can get the SJWs and the left to turn
out for the death of the right. They will then turn the guns on "their own"
because those sheep are just as deplorable. Burn it down! Tear it apart! Show
your true selves for the devils you are.
Today's soft coup plotters may indeed be breaking the law. Didn't American
colonial coup plotters also break the law? I.e. Washington, Jefferson, Adams,
Paine, all committed hanging offenses. We are in their debt.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security
Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale
attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China - as well as
attacks in the US and South America.
The US is effectively an empire, not a republic. Empires are always fighting
wars to maintain and expand. Russia is viewed not as just a large influential
country, but an obstacle to expansion of the empire. This is the view of the
Deep State which defends the interests of the US ruling class, the finance
capitalist class. It runs a worldwide imperialist system.
Trump has no interest in empire. Sure, he will go to war against individual
countries which he believes are encroaching on US interests, but he defines
these interests more narrowly as the republic being cheated or taken advantage
of by other states. He has no interest in sitting before a map like Halford
Mackinder and moving pieces around the chess board. Trump would probably not be
too interested in running off to Myanmar like Obama because it was a pawn on
the geopolitical chess board.
This is an intolerable situation for the masters of the empire. Getting rid
of Trump is the solution. Pence will be the empire's servant.
The Democrats hold contradictory views here. On the one hand, they are
salivating because they believe that anyone who doesn't have Hillary Clinton's
baggage they nominate for 2020 would beat Trump, so they want him wounded but
still in office. Note that it was reported that some Democrats cautioned
against a rush to impeachment. Pence would be a far more formidable opponent in
2020.
The Republicans know this too. The Republican establishment would like to be
rid of Trump as it considers him an albatross. They probably believe that Pence
would be a stronger candidate. On the other hand, Trump is immensely popular
among the Republican base. If Republican Congresspeople and Senators get on the
anti-Trump bandwagon, there will be hell to pay. Trump could go around the
country packing stadiums, financing primary campaigns, and maybe even run for
President in 2020 as an independent or, if he is somehow disallowed because he
is an impeached president, he could support a proxy. The establishment,
Democrat and Republican, would be making a massive mistake underestimating
Donald Trump.
This is pretty elaborate. Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation
is typically the right one. In this case, Trump clearly treats his staff like
rented mules, ritualistically ignoring their recomendations, belittling their
capabilities, and throwing them under the bus whenever possible. Is it any
wonder that they would leak to whomever will listen? As to the reality of the
Russia conspiracy, there is a bit more evidence than Giraldi admits most
glaringly in the Administration's repeated and politically inexplicable
attempts to treat the Kremlin like a long and trusted ally. Also, it wasn't so
much the DNC hack as the wikileaks hack that was problematic in the election.
But for all that, I do agree that Flynn was clearly on the payroll of Turkey,
and that he should be prosecuted accordingly. I just don't think the rest of
the Administration was involved. But there is clearly more than just Flynn
eating out of Putin's hand.
It's not easy finding who leaked it because it doesn't have to be anyone who
was in the room.
The meeting transcript is archived, so who ever records the meeting, has
access to the archive of the meeting, or who is in the Intel community and
knows that Trump talked to the Russians about airline security could have
leaked this to the press. There is also the universe of politicians if they
were briefed on the meeting, but I am thinking this to be a long shot in this
case.
Crooks and cheats always scream loudest about and direct their most intense
anger at the 'squealers' who get them in trouble. (Of course it is their own
behavior that gets them in trouble, really, but their egos will not allow
admitting that.)
But, any cop will tell you we would have very few successes
in the justice system at all if it were not for these 'squealers." Either their
direct evidence itself, or the investigative leads their information provides,
make most cases, especially the cases in which there is little physical
evidence.
So it is here, with Giraldi joining in with the Trump cabal to raise a stink
about the leaks and the leakers.
Informants are very rarely seen in a positive light, even by the side using
them (the cops, in my analogy), but what turns out to matter is the crime
itself. In this case, maybe there is no crime–as Giraldi suggests–but to even
find that out we will get there by using the info, or at least starting with
the info that these leaks are providing.
The U.S. isn't just governed by laws, but by norms too. Trump isn't given the
benefit of the doubt not only by institutions housed within the executive
branch, but by the judicial branch too. The blunt truth is people's refusal to
acknowledge that Trump is unqualified for the presidency, mentally unsound, and
a national security liability. What we're seeing now is how aspects of
government work when confronted with such a situation.
The word "conspiracy" literally means breathing together. A conspiracy doesn't
require clandestine meetings, but essentially arises from individuals
"breathing" together.
Given that Trump's administration leaks more in one day than Obama's
administration leaked in eight years we must assume that the real problem here
is President Trump. Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his troops this
problem would never exist. Obviously numerous very powerful and knowledgeable
individuals are in a panic over Trump's presidency. That is not a good sign and
we all should be very worried about what is really going on in the White House.
Aegis puts his finger on it: "Perhaps if the man could inspire loyalty in his
troops this problem would never exist." Yes–a leader must *inspire* loyalty,
not demand it over dinner at the White House.
Trump inspires, at the best, nervous regard. At the worst, worse. He is not
much of a leader–rather a whiner and the like. How much loyalty would YOU
pledge to a petulant five-year-old?
Step back for a moment. Trump is a man who, after losing the popular vote by 3
million, suddenly declares there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary. That
statement is so preposterous that it is perfectly reasonable to call it insane
(yet the GOP will still form a committee to look into it). He utters many such
insane statements.
Trump clearly does not understand the Constitution that he's sworn to
uphold. His ignorance and ineptitude are on the public record simply by
reviewing his speeches and tweets - no mainstream media required.
Are there so-called "Deep Staters" out to get Trump for the wrong reasons?
Sure. But there are so many right reasons to get rid of him that it's safe to
assume that many of the leakers are Republicans who happen to love their
country more than they love their party. Cheers for everyone doing their part
to prove how dangerous Trump is to national security. (With luck, someone will
dig up the tax returns that he's unconscionably withheld).
As others have said, Trump's problem is of Trump's making.
After just 100 days in the office Trump already has a special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency. ..."
"... Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation. ..."
"... Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up. ..."
"... Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation. ..."
"... Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat. ..."
"... Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years. ..."
"... Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich. ..."
"... Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn. ..."
"... One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric. ..."
"... From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November. ..."
"... Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course. ..."
"... "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions. ..."
"... If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here. Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags. This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. ..."
"With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of
The Washington Post .
What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the
prodigal son?
Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to
take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.
Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between
Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.
Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his
way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses.
What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.
Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his
phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey
last week.
Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great
and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take. Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will
find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.
Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove
disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.
After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney
for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the
document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.
Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit
on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the
good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.
Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it
is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President
Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.
Trump set up his own demise -- all the Jews like Rosenstein that he has appointed would really rather
have the rabid evangelical Israel supporter Pence as president.
The appointment of former director Mueller to take charge of an investigation too hot for Rosenstein
or anyone in his department to file a report on, particularly if no prosecution will be recommended,
does not presage this affair will continue interminably. Months of work have already been put
into the matter by the FBI. Mueller may arrive, ask those agents for a summary of what they have
unearthed, say, "I don't see anything here. Do you think further work by you will uncover more?",
and if they respond, "No", Mueller might very well take what he is given, file a report saying
no prosecution is warranted, just as Jim Comey did in the Clinton matter, and go home.
The man is retired with honor. He doesn't need to make a name for himself with this or any
other case. The last thing he wants to find out is that there is evidence that might result in
the impeachment and criminal prosecution of the President of the United States.
Wasnt pat a happy supporter of the special counsel investigating Clinton? Now suddenly he is against
such counsels? How about some priciples Mr buchanan?
And here is a hat tip for you aggrieved folks here. Trump brought this on himself. He could have
avoided it all by simply letting Comey do his job. If there really is nothing in the Russia story,
then Comey would have come up with nothing.
Trump has been used to running a family business all his life and a fake TV show as well where
his and only his word runs. That is not how the government functions and nor should it be. What
happened to the famous negotiator? The one who could make great deals? Who would learn quickly
how to navigate the waters and make things happen. This person seems non existent. Lets see some
of that please.
Wall Street swooned *not* because Trump's "populist" agenda is endangered but rather because Alt-Trump's
bait-and-switch pro-Wall Street agenda is endangered. That Pat Buchanan cannot distinguish these
is stunning to behold.
And if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated in January, there wouldn't be a dozen Congressional
committees pursuing specious investigations, egged on by right wing media? (Even this comment
thread carries one such demand, and she is not in office.)
This is one outcome of a poisoned body politic. Roger Ailes was there at the beginning, and
we are all sickened by his legacy.
Unfortunately, Buchanan seems to have ignored the fact that Rosenstein's decision to appoint a
special prosecutor was sparked by Trump's precipitous and unnecessary decision to dismiss Comey.
It was a foolish decision and now he's paying a price for it.
One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both
houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well
crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric.
U.S. President D.J. Trump is himself 100% responsible for the political and legal debacles where
he is in now and will be in for any foreseeable future!
From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were
against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political
opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college
victory last November.
Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with
one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until
it will be too late to reverse the course.
John Gruskos (8:57 a.m.) is right. Justin Raimondo's column today is a "must read":
"The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks
coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo,
smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the
Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen
intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the
Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia
impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think
of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What
we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely
carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to
criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within
the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out
any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone
who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and
could face legal sanctions.
What goes around, comes around. The Republicans did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Remember,
if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Be careful about the precedents you set.
Has anyone considered that the opposition from career bureaucrats is due to their past experience
as to what works and what doesn't? They can recognize a half-baked plan, concocted by someone
who has only a hazy idea of what goes on (the guy who managed to admit that health care was "complicated"
after touting on the campaign trail that it was easy). Add to it stubborness and unwillingness
to learn, and those bureaucrats may think that they are staring at an accident waiting to happen.
If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment
politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does
not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is
a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here.
Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable
or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations"
of the decision raised red flags.
This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America.
He will
be held to a higher standard until such time as he realizes he cannot run this world's most powerful
country like some sham casino operation he let fall into bankruptcy. And @Cal, this is not a Jewish
conspiracy. If you can't see that Trump is an incompetent idiot narcissist, you can't see anything.
"... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
"... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
"... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
"... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth
pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds
that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our
power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like."
Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance
we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:
Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may
be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with
size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with
quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.
In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders
"following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What
he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it
bitterly divided.
Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for
his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs,
income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed
by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal
of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White
House.
Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will
deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated
the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since
taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying
conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is
one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his
ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.
Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment
of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon
Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break
the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant
for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment
we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the
man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to
do.
This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means
to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture.
Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common
culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote
that restoration.
If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually
qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to
blow up the world.
In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale
for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back
into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.
We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full
partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be
closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest
ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.
To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams
believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage
between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To
correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind
of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."
As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.
"... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
"... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
"... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of
the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted
in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the
future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.
What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency,
and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his
White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis
proportions of its own.
When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton
as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email
server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was
a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president,
and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered
Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely
went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger
who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But,
unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended
up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered,
tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man
who most clamorously rebelled against it.
The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate
on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns
and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted
and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would
happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more
important than the civic health of their nation?
So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon
which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have
fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American
history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.
And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an
appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile,
we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce
the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s,
when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening
to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit
themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates
over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate
America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant
David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial
interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced
from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial
zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more
and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one
of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.
All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.
And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing
them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it
was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack
on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country
bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen,
Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the
risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November,
it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed,
so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.
Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they
consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so
much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing
of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has
reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and
threat.
Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump
through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet
informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms
that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity
as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential
incompetence.
Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States.
No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly,
it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?
The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's
political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages
of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy
that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion
being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a
hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue
a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian
policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.
Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis
in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have,
and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could
even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification
and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American
heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove
worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity,
merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative
. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century
, is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.
If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda"
by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based
journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.
Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge,
in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont
to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice
in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most
of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our
polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights"
are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure,
etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very
much the contrary.
What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining
characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.
Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves
different elites".
A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and
power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis
and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the "
dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have
bad elites.
This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As
Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.
Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing
income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income
is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.
I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create
since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American
Conservative"?
"Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that
their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"
"Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances
no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."
Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed
up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should
occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not
make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?
Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary,
when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise
supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but
Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America
you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.
What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix
government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for
the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans
who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly,
that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant
nonetheless.
Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed
and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain
have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed
Syria.
This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been
ten times longer.
I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.
"So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."
How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are
looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much.
You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion
only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they
get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services?
The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who
paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making
sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to
have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.
Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media
and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by
being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and
racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status
quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
"The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT
include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code
word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own
interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump.
Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school
that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't
elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you
want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling
that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with
and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he
was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only
presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."
The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total.
The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that
they received less than 50% of the total.
Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
Clinton 1992 – 43%
Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%
Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.
But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled
House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:
Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into
the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign
off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty
governments in Africa and the Middle East
There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible
to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there
wouldn't be any leaking going on.
If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing.
The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing
For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!
On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."
You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working
class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3]
persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4]
11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was
founded."
But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in
their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These
people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."
You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:
• He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying
America and
• He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.
You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."
You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected
a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand
up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us
and not back down!
The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.
Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!
"The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo
ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find
the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of
terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just
don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists
with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and
you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit
of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a
win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.
To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the
usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said,
regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their
advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we
are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what
this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It
feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public
positions.
The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when
a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running
a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in
the top ranks of government?
The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how
complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.
You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional
right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting
whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare
and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining
about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "
Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the
issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp'
(he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never
de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".
For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.
I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to
wash your hands of this Administration and move on.
" The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias
as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault
of some vague and unnamed "them"."
Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl
Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base
has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.
I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise.
Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound.
One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility
here.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought
inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.
The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.
Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.
Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social
contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.
Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling
for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.
Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie
you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.
But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .
We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to
capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.
Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose
jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.
For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those
kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?
Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage
and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)
That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow
citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon
Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)
But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.
The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and
pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot
of people alive.
And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson
to tighten their belts.
Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our
country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.
Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation
and less public spending.
Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.
This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do
well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.
Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM
was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars,
it means people are feeling good about their prospects.
I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when
Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.
If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would
curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have
shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions
from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will
slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the
US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to
govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows
how to govern.
As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning
the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my
party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and
women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy
and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.
Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I
still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not
DC.
Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to
fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really.
You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held
1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
1) Who is Joe Biden?
2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator?
State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?
The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think
that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration
now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more
seriously when the next administration takes over.
So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary
Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are
closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support
from non-elite voters to stay in office.
But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing
elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into
deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.
"All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."
Nice try.
Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings
about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."
1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers
a strong middle class life are gone.
2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated
and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).
3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in
an emergent 21st-century global economy.
Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and
could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.
The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding
system as bizarre as ours?
Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic
anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist
warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer
anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even
further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange
for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled
by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.
Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal,"
progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.
So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That
was effect elitists had on some of us.
April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing
In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking
conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends
himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John
McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.
"Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"
Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president,
who knows?
These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with
three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world
dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".
A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't
believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced
to
And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and
intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.
Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites)
always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.
Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.
Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.
I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one
of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).
The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites.
It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.
Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said.
Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?
My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.
Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at
my feet.
Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have
not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking
about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.
Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just
is too short to come to a decision.
So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced
by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever
its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning,
"better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected
to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.
The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland
Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain
to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they
were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow
needed peaceful change.
So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected?
Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy
Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand
the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might
turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of
course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.
The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't
control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would
lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.
What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to
tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any
day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political
fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic
lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).
I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic,
navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.
This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't
be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast.
It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New
York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the
60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride
as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent
neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate.
It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to
see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking
the government back
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make
the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to
the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday
of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic,
assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve
of it?
But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence
"community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep
state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right
at its institutional heart.
And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what
I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').
Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into
the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?
So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.
Say what you will about Obama and his
looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and
executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.
But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on
the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.
Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and
politicians.
If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime
change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants,
and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting
him to the hilt.
If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats
and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria
that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of
Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning
for social acceptance.
If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was
fit to lead.
The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats
were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.
The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted
votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When,
in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious
and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins,
whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down
that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within
a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in
international air space the whole time!
It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest
of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and
a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The
"authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but
this story would not have any happy ending.
As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many
Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would
have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly
toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in
the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying
jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really
restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the
most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make
the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she
would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to
do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has
set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority
of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned
out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.
And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.
65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to
"see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?
I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses
for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the
mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.
Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision
to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack
it.
Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump.
After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself
by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would
wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump.
They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction,
malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.
Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For
some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million
voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary
presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.
Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans
- to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would
behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness
made them deaf, dumb, and blind?
I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead
of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but
not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and
impeach the nevertrumpers.
You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons
already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow
the republic to recover.
Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he
may not have.
The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying
to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid
things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on
around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan,
it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is
an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they
really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of
actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.
As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.
This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!
One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration,
the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is
good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture.
Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven
a powerful wedge through America. "
While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because
the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely
no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.
In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating
the law with no consequences.
The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements,
its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact
that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.
And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats
were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times.
As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that
the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply
is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time
when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right
let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement
breadth and energy.
But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed
victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the
republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.
With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic
"three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of
the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise.
Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers
and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that
delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take
an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing
number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from
the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection
and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.
That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"
It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.
What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals
and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites
for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and
the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost
impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such
a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable
Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president.
I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.
When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council
has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby
Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1
million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.
That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves
Republicans.
"When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem."
The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal
media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There
are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence,
primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.
This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the
TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.".
And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American
Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry?
I wonder.
I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called
"minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency
that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring
America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His
selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick
is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You
can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the
people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE
THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will.
The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist
Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors
to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates
the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media,"
a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class,
and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who
disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was
your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our
Constitution, Merry?
I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get
that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working
man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected
him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is
dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide
between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable
campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so
many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot
of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made
the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of
people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some
wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's
comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't
like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.
Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves.
There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional,
it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives
that didn't truly represent their interests.
Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8%
of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.
Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period
in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.
-Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election
away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."
Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not
worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow
govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from
Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President.
Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits,
but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken
for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.
Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language
isn't the issue either, in my view.
Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't
have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy
and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit
either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment
is a very tough slog.
Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations,
as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The
seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment
before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to
impeachment a man even before he took office.
I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says,
is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on
TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again
has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything
about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.
I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes
in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because
of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny
as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have
a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster
and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience.
And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt
it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by
the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always
been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was
probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.
Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on
every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The
constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code
is a tad bit "funny".
No. Humorous.
What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began
shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy,
the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.
Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11
any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful
– devastating to the attackers.
In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to
compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying
to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable"
and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.
-----
"Sad!"
Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!
Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.
There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.
It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave
enough to acknowledge it.
Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.
"... Joe Lieberman surfacing from the lowest portal of the swamp, is not good news. The suppliers of the intelligence that Trump told the Ruskies, want to control the US Intelligence Community. ..."
Joe Lieberman surfacing from the lowest portal of the swamp, is not good news. The suppliers of the intelligence that Trump told
the Ruskies, want to control the US Intelligence Community.
How many nuclear weapons do they have and where are they pointed ? Anyone allowed to ask ?
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stands behind memo Trump used to justify sacking Comey but he admits he already knew FBI
boss was being fired
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein briefed House members for the first time since he penned a memo criticizing former
FBI Director James Comey and named a special counsel to investigate Trump campaign Russia ties
He told lawmakers he stands by the memo he wrote slamming Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation
'Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader'
He repeated his statement that he knew President Trump was going to fire Comey before he wrote the letter criticizing the
axed FBI Director
He said Comey's conduct in the Clinton investigation was 'profoundly wrong and unfair' to the DOJ and to Clinton
Discussed the need for 'new leadership' in one of his first meetings with Attorney General Jeff Sessions
'I chose the issues to include in my memorandum'
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein called James Comey a 'role' model, in his first official comments about the firing on Friday,
but he is standing by the memo he wrote that President
Trump used to justify his firing of FBI Director.
'I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it,' Rosenstein told lawmakers in two closed-door meetings Friday.
'It is a candid memorandum about the FBI Director's public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation,' Rosenstein
said, according to a copy of his opening statement,
The
Hill reported.
Although he piled on Comey in the memo and called for new leadership, he stopped short of calling for his firing.
'I thought the July 5 press conference [by Comey] was profoundly wrong and unfair both to the Department of Justice and Secretary
Clinton. It explicitly usurped the role of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Department of Justice;
it violated deeply engrained rules and traditions; and it guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the
election,' Rosenstein said, according to a copy of his opening remarks.
'My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct; the inspector general will render his judgement about the issue in due
course,' Rosenstein said, referencing an internal probe of Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
'Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader,' Rosenstein said.
He went a bit into the dramatic events that led to Comey's ouster, and repeated his statement that he knew Comey was going to
get fired before he wrote it.
'I informed the senior attorney that the president was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the
attorney general summarizing my own concerns and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate,' Rosenstein
said.
Rosenstein praised Comey even as he acknowledged telling Attorney General Jeff Sessions he thought Comey should go.
"I have known Jim Comey since approximately 2002. In 2005, when Mr. Comey was Deputy Attorney General, he participated in selecting
me to serve as a US attorney,' Rosenstein said. 'As a federal prosecutor, he was a role model. His speeches about leadership and
public service inspired me.'
But he said Comey's decision to hold a press conference announcing his decision not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton 'was
profoundly wrong.'
He repeated his statement from Thursday to Senators that he knew Trump was going to fire Comey when he wrote the letter trashing
Comey's handling of the Clinton email inevstigation.
'On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my
personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader,' Rosenstein said.
'I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey's public statements
concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.'
Rosenstein's opening statement to lawmakers
Good afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to discuss my role in the removal of FBI Director James Comey, although I know you understand
that I will not discuss the special counsel's ongoing investigation. Most importantly, I want to emphasize my unshakeable commitment
to protecting the integrity of every federal criminal investigation. There never has been, and never will be, any political interference
in any matter under my supervision in the United States Department of Justice.
Before I discuss the events of the past two weeks, I want to provide some background about my previous relationship with former
Director Comey. I have known Jim Comey since approximately 2002. In 2005, when Mr. Comey was Deputy Attorney General, he participated
in selecting me to serve as a U.S. Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, he was a role model. His speeches about leadership and public
service inspired me.
On July 5, 2016, Director Comey held his press conference concerning the federal grand jury investigation of Secretary Clinton's
emails. At the start of the press conference, the Director stated that he had "not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any
way with the Department of Justice . They do not know what I am about to say."
Director Comey went on to declare that he would publicly disclose "what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to
the Department of Justice." He proceeded to disclose details about the evidence; assert that the American people "deserve" to know
details; declare that no "reasonable" prosecutor would file charges; and criticize Secretary Clinton.
I thought the July 5 press conference was profoundly wrong and unfair both to the Department of Justice and Secretary Clinton.
It explicitly usurped the role of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Department of Justice; it violated
deeply engrained rules and traditions; and it guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.
There are lawful and appropriate mechanisms to deal with unusual circumstances in which public confidence in the rule of law may
be jeopardized. Such mechanisms preserve the traditional balance of power between investigators and prosecutors, and protect the
rights of citizens.
Director Comey attended the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office training seminar on October 27, 2016, and gave a detailed explanation
of his reasons for making public statements about the conclusion of the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed
with his analysis, but I believe that he made his decisions in good faith.
The next day, October 28, Mr. Comey sent his letter to the Congress announcing that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
He subsequently has said that he believed he was obligated to send the letter. I completely disagree. He again usurped the authority
of the Department of Justice, by sending the letter over the objection of the Department of Justice; flouted rules and deeply engrained
traditions; and guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, Director Comey testified under oath about his public statements concerning
the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed with his explanations, particularly his assertion that maintaining
confidentiality about criminal investigations constitutes concealment. Nonetheless, I respected him personally.
Former Department of Justice officials from both political parties have criticized Director Comey's decisions. It was not just
an isolated mistake; the series of public statements about the email investigation, in my opinion, departed from the proper role
of the FBI Director and damaged public confidence in the Bureau and the Department.
In one of my first meetings with then-Senator Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI.
Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department
of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.
On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my
personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.
I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey's public statements
concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.
I chose the issues to include in my memorandum.
Before finalizing the memorandum on May 9, I asked a senior career attorney on my staff to review it. That attorney is an ethics
expert who has worked in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General during multiple administrations. He was familiar with the issues.
I informed the senior attorney that the President was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the Attorney
General summarizing my own concerns, and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate. He concurred with
the points raised in my memorandum. I also asked several other career Department attorneys to review the memorandum and provide edits.
My memorandum is not a legal brief; these are not issues of law.
My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct; the Inspector General will render his judgment about that issue in
due course.
My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.
My memorandum is not a survey of FBI morale or performance.
My memorandum is not a press release.
It is a candid internal memorandum about the FBI Director's public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation.
I sent my signed memorandum to the Attorney General after noon on Tuesday, May 9. I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.
Finally, I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election. I am not aware of any such request. Moreover, I consulted my staff and Acting FBI Director Andrew
McCabe, and none of them recalls such a request.
Then he added: 'I chose the issues to include in my memorandum' – essentially taking on those who have argued President Trump
demanded the memo.
The letter Rosenstein penned severely criticizing Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Comey came out
with a public statement in July where he castigated Clinton for her 'extreme carelessness.'
Then, days before the election, he told lawmakers the inquiry was gearing up again to look at Clinton emails that ended up on
disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner's computer.
'I cannot defend the director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand
his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken,' Rosenstein wrote – in a letter the White House released
immediately after Trump fired Comey.
Senators said Thursday that Rosenstein knew that
President Trump was going to fire Comey before
he wrote a memo raking Comey over the coals for his handling of the
Clinton email scandal.
Rosenstein briefed senators Thursday, just a week after Trump's stunning decision to fire Comey.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told reporters afterward that Rosenstein revealed new information about the letter he penned, which
Trump cited to justify Comey's firing.
'He did acknowledge that he learned Comey would be removed prior to him writing his memo,' McCaskill said.
'He knew that Comey was going to be removed prior to him writing his memo,' the Missouri senator added.
Her account of the closed meeting was backed up by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
'Yes,' Durbin said, asked whether Rosenstein knew Comey was getting fired before he wrote it. 'He knew the day before,' he said,
adding that Rosentein learned May 8th, the date he wrote the memo.
How Rosenstein got the post that let him outsource Russia probe
President Trump nominated career Justice Department official Rod Rosenstein to be deputy attorney general in February – but his
fate was immediately tied up in the probe of Russian election interference.
Rosenstein's March confirmation hearing came just five days after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from election
investigations, following revelations of his undisclosed contacts with the Russians.
With Sessions on the sidelines, lawmakers new Rosenstein would have the authority to oversee the FBI's Russia investigation or
outsource it to a special counsel. The career official had a reputation for integrity and bipartisan backing. But Democrats demanded
answers on how he would conduct himself – and grilled him for his views on an independent investigation.
He assured Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy: 'I'm willing to appoint a special counsel, Senator, whenever I determine that it's appropriate
based upon the policies and procedures of the Justice Department.'
Democrats also pressed him on political interference. 'Certainly if the president had a conflict in a particular matter I would
not take any advice from the president,' Rosenstein assured the Judiciary Committee.
Ultimately, he was confirmed by the Senate on a 95 to 6 vote on April 25. Within less than a month, he named former FBI Director
Robert Mueller as a special counsel investigating Russian election interference, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey,
reportedly gave highly classified information to top Russian officials in the Oval Office, and reportedly asked Comey to back off
his investigation of fired security advisor Mike Flynn. The White House denied the reports.
Robert Mueller was FBI director on
September 11, 2001 (he was appointed on September 4).
Now Russia is officially a pariah state, any contacts with Russian officials can be a career
limited move.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. ..."
"... In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees. ..."
"... Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign. ..."
After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy,
and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people
has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks
within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not
written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real.
Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible – and Trump's
goal
of "getting along with Russia" will surely not be implemented now that the regime of the special
counsel has trumped him – but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive, and perhaps
prosecute him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the process.
No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about
the future of our republic. Because the warning to our politicians could not be clearer: So you want
to effect a fundamental change in US foreign policy? You dare to question the permanence of NATO?
Let this be a lesson to you.
This goes way beyond the Trump administration: the potential targets of the investigation are
potentially unlimited. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein's
letter to the Special Counsel – Bush era FBI Director Robert Mueller – also states that the counsel's
purview includes "any matters that arose directly from the investigation," as well as "any other
matters within the scope of
28 CFR 600.4 (a) ," which
refers to anyone who might conceivably be involved in obstructing the Special Counsel's probe.
In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history
of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe
into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional
committees.
Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations
with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign.
Furthermore, any media outlets that either supported Trump, had a good word to say about Trump,
and/or dissented from the Russophobic hysteria that has gripped the "mainstream" media are liable
to be scrutinized. Journalists with "Russian ties" – no matter how tenuous – will be caught up in
the witch-hunt. The Washington Post gave
front page prominence to a group of anonymous "researchers" that calls itself "
PropOrNot
," which has compiled a lengthy list of "pro-Russian" media outlets and web sites – including
the Drudge Report, and Antiwar.com.
The dynamics of the witch-hunt will play out in the manner in which it has operated up until this
point, only more so: the "mainstream" media will act as the research department of DOJ investigators,
"uncovering" the "pro-Russian" network in the US, inviting Mueller to move in for the kill. Politicians,
journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for
"Putin's puppets."
We haven't seen this kind of thing since the 1950s. Indeed, the history of these political lynchings
goes all the way back to the
Moscow Trials conducted by Stalin and his henchmen, who consolidated their power by prosecuting
"Trotskyite wreckers" and other "enemies of the people" – to the applause of Western "liberals."
What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have
routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States. Yet it is more – and worse – than
that.
This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus."
It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial
complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war. It is, in effect, political
terrorism – that is, an attempt to achieve political-ideological goals by the threat of force, i.e.
the threat of State coercion. The police state methods utilized by law enforcement agencies in this
country since 9/11 – universal surveillance, and the whole menu of cyber-spying techniques exposed
by Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks – will be deployed. And it won't just be our own American spooks
doing the eavesdropping.
The involvement of the
British and other European intelligence agencies in this regime-change operation on American
soil is
well-known : it was a "former" MI6 agent, one
Christopher Steele , who authored and circulated the infamous "dirty dossier" on Trump. The Ukrainians,
in particular, are in the forefront of this campaign: their targeting of Paul Manafort is out
in the open . And
a recent article in the Washington Post which relates a conversation between GOP House
majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and others, has McCarthy saying he thinks both Trump and
Rep. Rohrabacher are "paid by Putin." The exchange took place on Capitol Hill, after a meeting with
the Ukrainian envoy – and the Post , in a story datelined Kiev, reports that it was "recorded."
So who did the recording? My bet is on the Ukrainians.
"... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
"... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
"... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
"... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
"... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that
we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.
And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism
on the horizon.
But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the
role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored
? I think not.
With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste
can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of
the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical
changes.
When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties,
it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust
of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as
an "occupying force".
That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call
it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and
common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual".
Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some
even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate
who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination.
The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar,
ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become
so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.
... ... ...
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over
the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated
purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many
elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise
in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag
is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
... ... ...
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively
after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting
decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied
by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and
corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings
accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer
, was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests
in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial
transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating,
and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises,
and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of
the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and
fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid
of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before
the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk
about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday
Night Massacre."
That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even
minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.
... ... ...
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly
problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself.
But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the
Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal
wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian
knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.
The truth is, what's really putting our nation is risk is the flagrant leaking from within the
federal bureaucracy – those who oppose President Trump who are breaking the law when they leak classified
materials.
President Trump's critics and opponents – including many in the news media – claim this faux story
about President Trump providing classified material to the Russians puts the United States at risk.
The truth is, what's really putting our nation is risk is the flagrant leaking from
within
the federal bureaucracy
– those who oppose President Trump who are breaking the law when they
leak classified materials.
The real story – the real crisis – is the ongoing leak of classified information. That is serious
and something that the Trump Administration must address without delay. How this latest "story"
unfolded has become all too common in Washington. It's a manufactured crisis that puts our
national security at risk.
Let's hope Attorney General Sessions has impaneled a grand jury to investigate these troubling
leaks. These leakers need to face criminal charges and face prosecution.
The Trump Administration needs to send a strong message. It's time to seek out and prosecute
those who are criminally leaking classified material.
The fact is that many of those working to derail the Trump Administration work inside the federal
government. They are part of the bureaucratic "swamp" and in many cases are loyal to President Obama
and former Secretary of State Clinton
They don't like the way the election turned out. And they really don't like that President Trump
is in the Oval Office.
There's no question that there's a deep state shadow government at work here. What we're experiencing
is an unprecedented bureaucratic soft coup undermining our security.
The Obama Administration took action to empower the entrenched bureaucracy to subvert our national
security right before leaving office. It has led to dangerous leaks, criminal violations of the Espionage
Act, and the creation of a shadow government to sabotage the new Administration.
At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're
directly engaged in half a dozen lawsuits
to expose the shadow government and stop these dangerous
national security leaks.
It's time to plug the leaks and punish those who are responsible for leaking classified information.
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which focuses
on constitutional law. He's a New York Times bestselling author. Jay's latest book –
"Unholy Alliance: The Agenda Iran, Russia, and Jihadists Share for Conquering the World"
– is
available now. He hosts "Jay Sekulow Live"-- a daily radio show which is broadcast on more
than 850 stations nationwide as well as Sirius/XM satellite radio. Follow him on Twitter
@JaySekulow
.
"... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
"... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
"... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of
the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted
in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the
future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.
What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency,
and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his
White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis
proportions of its own.
When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton
as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email
server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was
a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president,
and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered
Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely
went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger
who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But,
unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended
up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered,
tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man
who most clamorously rebelled against it.
The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate
on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns
and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted
and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would
happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more
important than the civic health of their nation?
So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon
which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have
fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American
history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.
And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an
appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile,
we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce
the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s,
when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening
to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit
themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates
over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate
America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant
David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial
interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced
from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial
zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more
and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one
of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.
All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.
And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing
them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it
was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack
on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country
bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen,
Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the
risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November,
it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed,
so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.
Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they
consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so
much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing
of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has
reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and
threat.
Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump
through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet
informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms
that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity
as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential
incompetence.
Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States.
No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly,
it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?
The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's
political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages
of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy
that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion
being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a
hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue
a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian
policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.
Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis
in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have,
and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could
even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification
and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American
heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove
worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity,
merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative
. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century
, is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.
If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda"
by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based
journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.
Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge,
in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont
to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice
in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most
of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our
polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights"
are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure,
etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very
much the contrary.
What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining
characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.
Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves
different elites".
A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and
power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis
and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the "
dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have
bad elites.
This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As
Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.
Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing
income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income
is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.
I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create
since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American
Conservative"?
"Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that
their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"
"Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances
no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."
Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed
up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should
occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not
make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?
Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary,
when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise
supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but
Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America
you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.
What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix
government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for
the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans
who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly,
that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant
nonetheless.
Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed
and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain
have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed
Syria.
This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been
ten times longer.
I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.
"So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."
How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are
looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much.
You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion
only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they
get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services?
The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who
paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making
sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to
have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.
Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media
and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by
being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and
racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status
quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
"The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT
include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code
word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own
interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump.
Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school
that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't
elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you
want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling
that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with
and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he
was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only
presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."
The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total.
The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that
they received less than 50% of the total.
Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
Clinton 1992 – 43%
Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%
Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.
But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled
House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:
Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into
the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign
off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty
governments in Africa and the Middle East
There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible
to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there
wouldn't be any leaking going on.
If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing.
The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing
For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!
On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."
You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working
class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3]
persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4]
11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was
founded."
But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in
their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These
people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."
You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:
• He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying
America and
• He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.
You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."
You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected
a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand
up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us
and not back down!
The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.
Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!
"The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo
ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find
the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of
terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just
don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists
with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and
you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit
of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a
win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.
To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the
usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said,
regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their
advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we
are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what
this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It
feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public
positions.
The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when
a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running
a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in
the top ranks of government?
The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how
complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.
You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional
right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting
whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare
and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining
about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "
Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the
issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp'
(he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never
de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".
For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.
I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to
wash your hands of this Administration and move on.
" The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias
as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault
of some vague and unnamed "them"."
Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl
Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base
has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.
I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise.
Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound.
One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility
here.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought
inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.
The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.
Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.
Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social
contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.
Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling
for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.
Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie
you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.
But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .
We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to
capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.
Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose
jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.
For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those
kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?
Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage
and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)
That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow
citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon
Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)
But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.
The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and
pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot
of people alive.
And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson
to tighten their belts.
Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our
country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.
Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation
and less public spending.
Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.
This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do
well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.
Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM
was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars,
it means people are feeling good about their prospects.
I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when
Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.
If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would
curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have
shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions
from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will
slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the
US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to
govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows
how to govern.
As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning
the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my
party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and
women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy
and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.
Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I
still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not
DC.
Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to
fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really.
You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held
1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
1) Who is Joe Biden?
2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator?
State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?
The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think
that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration
now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more
seriously when the next administration takes over.
So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary
Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are
closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support
from non-elite voters to stay in office.
But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing
elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into
deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.
"All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."
Nice try.
Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings
about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."
1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers
a strong middle class life are gone.
2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated
and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).
3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in
an emergent 21st-century global economy.
Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and
could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.
The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding
system as bizarre as ours?
Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic
anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist
warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer
anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even
further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange
for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled
by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.
Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal,"
progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.
So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That
was effect elitists had on some of us.
April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing
In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking
conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends
himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John
McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.
"Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"
Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president,
who knows?
These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with
three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world
dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".
A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't
believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced
to
And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and
intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.
Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites)
always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.
Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.
Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.
I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one
of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).
The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites.
It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.
Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said.
Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?
My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.
Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at
my feet.
Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have
not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking
about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.
Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just
is too short to come to a decision.
So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced
by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever
its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning,
"better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected
to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.
The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland
Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain
to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they
were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow
needed peaceful change.
So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected?
Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy
Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand
the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might
turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of
course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.
The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't
control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would
lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.
What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to
tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any
day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political
fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic
lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).
I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic,
navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.
This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't
be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast.
It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New
York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the
60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride
as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent
neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate.
It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to
see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking
the government back
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make
the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to
the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday
of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic,
assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve
of it?
But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence
"community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep
state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right
at its institutional heart.
And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what
I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').
Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into
the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?
So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.
Say what you will about Obama and his
looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and
executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.
But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on
the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.
Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and
politicians.
If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime
change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants,
and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting
him to the hilt.
If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats
and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria
that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of
Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning
for social acceptance.
If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was
fit to lead.
The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats
were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.
The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted
votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When,
in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious
and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins,
whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down
that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within
a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in
international air space the whole time!
It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest
of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and
a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The
"authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but
this story would not have any happy ending.
As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many
Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would
have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly
toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in
the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying
jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really
restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the
most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make
the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she
would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to
do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has
set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority
of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned
out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.
And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.
65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to
"see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?
I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses
for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the
mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.
Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision
to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack
it.
Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump.
After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself
by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would
wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump.
They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction,
malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.
Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For
some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million
voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary
presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.
Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans
- to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would
behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness
made them deaf, dumb, and blind?
I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead
of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but
not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and
impeach the nevertrumpers.
You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons
already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow
the republic to recover.
Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he
may not have.
The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying
to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid
things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on
around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan,
it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is
an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they
really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of
actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.
As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.
This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!
One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration,
the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is
good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture.
Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven
a powerful wedge through America. "
While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because
the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely
no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.
In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating
the law with no consequences.
The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements,
its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact
that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.
And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats
were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times.
As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that
the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply
is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time
when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right
let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement
breadth and energy.
But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed
victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the
republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.
With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic
"three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of
the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise.
Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers
and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that
delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take
an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing
number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from
the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection
and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.
That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"
It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.
What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals
and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites
for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and
the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost
impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such
a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable
Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president.
I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.
When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council
has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby
Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1
million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.
That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves
Republicans.
"When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem."
The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal
media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There
are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence,
primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.
This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the
TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.".
And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American
Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry?
I wonder.
I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called
"minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency
that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring
America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His
selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick
is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You
can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the
people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE
THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will.
The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist
Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors
to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates
the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media,"
a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class,
and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who
disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was
your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our
Constitution, Merry?
I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get
that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working
man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected
him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is
dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide
between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable
campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so
many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot
of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made
the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of
people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some
wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's
comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't
like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.
Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves.
There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional,
it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives
that didn't truly represent their interests.
Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8%
of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.
Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period
in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.
-Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election
away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."
Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not
worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow
govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from
Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President.
Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits,
but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken
for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.
Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language
isn't the issue either, in my view.
Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't
have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy
and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit
either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment
is a very tough slog.
Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations,
as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The
seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment
before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to
impeachment a man even before he took office.
I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says,
is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on
TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again
has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything
about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.
I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes
in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because
of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny
as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have
a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster
and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience.
And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt
it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by
the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always
been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was
probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.
Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on
every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The
constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code
is a tad bit "funny".
No. Humorous.
What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began
shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy,
the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.
Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11
any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful
– devastating to the attackers.
In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to
compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying
to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable"
and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.
-----
"Sad!"
Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!
Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.
There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.
It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave
enough to acknowledge it.
Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.
We note that King's comments - somewhat defending President Trump - come shortly after Senator
McCain's Trump-defending comments... did Trump 'cross the aisle' to the neocons?
The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as
special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump's
campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an
affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump's four-month-old presidency.
The decision by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came after a cascade of
damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including his abrupt dismissal of the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the subsequent disclosure that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey
to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Mr. Rosenstein had been under escalating pressure from Democrats, and even some
Republicans, to appoint a special counsel after he wrote a memo that the White House
initially cited as the rationale for Mr. Comey's dismissal.
By appointing Mr. Mueller, a former federal prosecutor with an unblemished reputation, Mr.
Rosenstein could alleviate uncertainty about the government's ability to investigate the
questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement that he concluded that "it is in the public interest
for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for
this matter."
"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is
warranted," Mr. Rosenstein added. "I have made no such determination."
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who preceded James Comey in that role from 2001 to 2013 and served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
In a seismic event, the United States Department of Justice just announced a special prosecutor will lead the investigation into
Russian interference in the 2016 election, which includes a probe of whether associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russian
officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who preceded James Comey in that
role from 2001 to 2013 and served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The move follows months of damaging revelations, salacious leaks, and generalized uncertainty surrounding the investigation, which
gradually lost the public's faith as a result. After all, Rosenstein made the selection because the attorney general, Jeff Sessions,
was forced to recuse himself after it emerged that he misled a Senate committee about whether he was in contact with Russian officials
during the campaign.
The Washington Post reported that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on two separate occasions, something Sessions
did not include in his testimony. (Lying under oath to a Senate committee constitutes perjury, but Sessions was confirmed as AG and
has never been substantially accused.) The former Alabama senator was also a prominent Trump supporter during the campaign -- he
was the first senator to endorse him. So, beyond the recusal, the Justice Department already lacked the necessary appearance of independence
libezkova said in reply to Christopher H....
May 17, 2017 at 08:28 PM "Trump is actually a backlash to neoliberal policies."
Very true. "Blowback" as the "deep state" calls such things.
It means that the more you push in the particular direction using illegal means, the more are
chances that the opposite result might occur.
The greater fuss over North Korea, the more rapidly it develops its weapons, and simultaneously
grows the range of its ballistic missiles making it a real security threat for the USA, instead of
a fake one -- a pretext to deploy anti-missile systems against China and Russia in South Korea.
The more the US prolongs the illegal occupation of Afghanistan (which for some reason is called
"war") the easier for Taliban is to recruit foot solders, who often lost family members from drones
and will fight with double ferocity, not avoiding but sometimes seeking suicidal missions to extract
the revenge.
The more the USA tries to decapitate Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan using extra-law killings by drones,
victim of which are often civilians and sometimes only civilians (when for example a wedding was
hit), the easier for Al-Qaeda to grow strength in countries from Uganda to Uzbekistan because strength
of Al-Qaeda is also amplified by each such killing, as well as each turn of the US imperial policy
(Iraq and Libya are two examples).
Strangely, Trump first appeared to the American electorate dressed in the garb of an paleoconservative
isolationist, who questioned the relevance of NATO, thought the Iraq war was a disaster, and wanted
détente with Russia.
Fast forward 100 days, and his wardrobe change is breathtaking.
So now it is unclear why "intelligence community" is still trying to replace him -- he is one
of their own. But blowback from his impeachment (a dream of many neoliberal democrats here) might
be pretty strong, if nor ferocious. A real blowback.
In such cases an old saying is applicable: "There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your
heart's desire. The other is to gain it."
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. On Tuesday, the
New York Times reported that a memo written by James Comey states that
President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn.
Now, this was all about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. He had attended
an RT � the Russian television network � dinner in Moscow, he apparently
held some discussions there, he was paid for attending that dinner. He also
did some lobbying on behalf of Turkey and was paid for that, and the
investigation also has to do with whether Flynn has something to do with the
alleged interference of the Russians in the American elections. And this is
a big breach of etiquette for a president to More than etiquette, I
suppose � protocol, even the law � to tell an FBI director not to
investigate something. I guess that's illegal. Trump, of course, and the
White House denies this.
But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is
a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media
and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our
adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an
antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of
that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if
Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do
about all of this.
Now joining us to talk about the Comey affair, the Trump affair, and just
what is the issues in terms of the US-Russia relationship, is Robert
English. Robert is a professor of international relations at the University
of Southern California. He specializes in Russian and post-Soviet politics,
US-Russian relations, and national security policy. He formerly worked for
the US Department of Defense and the Committee for National Security, and
has published widely in both academic and policy journals. Thanks very much
for joining us, Robert.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Happy to be here.
PAUL JAY: Okay, so every day another storm, another drama. First of all,
what do you make of Maybe the most interesting thing in all of this Comey
thing today isn't Trump asking him to stop the investigation; that's not a
great shocker. The more interesting thing is somebody at the FBI who has
access to the Comey memo reads it to a journalist at the New York Times.
There's a lot of people out to get Trump here.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah, you're pointing to this larger problem, which is
this chaos, this infighting, and not just in a sort of careerist
bureaucratic way, but a kind of serious pitched battle between different
factions � in this case, between those in the Trump administration who seem
to want a fresh start with Russia, to try to begin cooperation on things
like Syria, terrorism, and so forth, and those dead set against it, who are
now using leaks and so forth to In part, to fight their battles. And so
the bureaucratic, the nasty, the backstabbing, the leaking, is one area of
issues, but you're pointing to this larger fundamental. Can we get along
with Russia? Is it worth trying to reset relations? And even if he's not the
best executor so far � and he's not � is Trump's basic idea of "We can get
along with Russia, let's give it a try" a good one? And I happen to think it
is; it's just being carried out awfully clumsily.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think one needs to separate the intent of Trump for
wanting better relation with Russia, which one can analyze, and the policy
itself. The policy of having a détente, although why there even needs to be
a détente is kind of a question mark But why is so much of the American
foreign policy establishment, the political class, the military leadership,
the vast majority of that whole stratum wants to maintain a very
antagonistic position towards Russia, and why?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, four or five reasons that all come together,
pushing in this Russophobic direction. We've always had sort of
unreconstructed Cold Warriors, people who never were easy with the new
Russia, right? Zbigniew Brzezinski and people of that ilk, who wanted to
just push Russia in a corner, take advantage of its weakness, never give it
a chance. Then you have people in the military-industrial complex, for lack
of a better term, whose vested interests lie in a continued rivalry, and
continued arms-racing, and continued threat inflation. You have other people
who normally would be liberal progressive, but they're so angry at Hillary
Clinton's loss, they're so uncomprehending of how someone they see as vulgar
and unqualified as Trump could get elected, that they're naturally unwilling
to let go of this "the Russians hacked our election, the Russians got Trump
elected" theme, and therefore, Russia is even bigger enemy than they would
be otherwise. These and other strains all come together in a strange way.
Some of this is the hard right, all right? Some of it is from the left, some
is from the center. And across the board, we have ignorance. Ignorance of
Russia.
PAUL JAY: Now, in an article you wrote recently, you went through some of
the history, and we're going to do another segment that digs into this
history more in depth, but when you look at the history of the '90s, and
Yeltsin, and the whole role of the United States in helping bring down the
Soviet Union, the whole point of bringing down the Soviet Union, and
standing Yeltsin up, and interfering in Russian elections to make sure
Yeltsin wins, and so on, was to open Russia for privatization for American
oligarchs. I don't think the idea was to do it for Russian oligarchs, but
that's how it turned out. Is that part of what is making this section of the
American oligarchs so angry about it all?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, when people look at Russia today, they try to
explain it in terms of one evil man, Putin, and that sort of conceals an
assumption that if we could just get rid of Putin, everything would be
better, and that Putin is the way he is � anti-American � because he's from
the KGB. You don't need to go back to his youth or his time in intelligence
to understand why he's very skeptical, why we have bad relations with Putin
and all those around him. You don't have to go back to the '50s or '40s. You
can go back just to the '90s, when we interfered in Russia, when we foisted
dysfunctional economic policies on them, when we meddled in their elections
repeatedly, and basically for an entire decade, we were handmaidens to a
catastrophe � economic, political, social � that sowed the seeds of this
resentment that continues to this day. It's a-
PAUL JAY: Yeah, you mention in your article that the consequences of the
'90s depression in Russia far surpassed anything in the '07-'08 recession in
the United States.
ROBERT ENGLISH: They far surpassed that. They even far surpassed anything
in our own Great Depression of the early 1930s, of '29, '30, '31 � you know,
the Great Depression, under Hoover and then Roosevelt. At that time, our
economy contracted by about a quarter, and the slump lasted about three
years before growth resumed. Russia's economy contracted almost by half, and
the slump lasted an entire decade, and it resulted not just in widespread
poverty, but millions of excess deaths, of suicides, of people dying of
despair, of heart disease, of treatable illnesses caused by the strains, the
This deep, unbelievable misery of that decade. It's no wonder that there
is deep resentment towards the US, and this underlies a lot of the Putin
elites' attitudes towards us. It's not something pathological, Putin being a
bad guy. If you got rid of Putin tomorrow, the next guy who came along, the
person most Russians would probably elect in democratic elections, wouldn't
be so different. It wouldn't be another Yeltsin or pro-Western liberal,
believe me.
PAUL JAY: Well, even if everything they say about Putin is true, and I
doubt and Quite sure not everything is true. If he is such a dictator,
United States foreign policy has never had any trouble with dictators, as
long as they're our dictators, so the thing drips with hypocrisy.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Hypocrisy and double standards all around are what
Russians see, okay? I mean, where do you begin? Look at the recent The
vote, the referendum in Crimea to secede from Ukraine, and of course, then
Russia annexed it into Russian territory, and we find that outrageous, a
violation of international law, and the Russians say, "Yeah, and what did
you engineer in Kosovo? You yanked Kosovo out of Serbia, you caused Kosovo
to secede from Serbia with no referendum, no international law. How is that
different? Right? When it's your client state it's okay, but when it's ours,
it's not?" And of course the list is a long one; we could spend all
afternoon going through them. So the first thing we need to do is stop the
sanctimony, and deal with Russia as an equal great power.
But, you know, can I say one more thing about the '90s that connect it
with what's going on today? In 1991, we had George Herbert Walker Bush in
the White House. It was still the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was still in power
for the rest of the year, and a warning came from our ambassador in Moscow,
Jack Matlock, which was passed on to the White House. He had inside
information from sources, from confidential sources, that a coup attempt was
being planned. And, by the way, of course it happened in August of that
year. That information came from our Ambassador Matlock, from his sources in
Moscow, to the White House. George Bush had been instructed that this was
highly sensitive, do not reveal the source of the information, keep it
confidential. Bush fouled up, and within hours, he got on the phone to
Moscow, a line that was open, monitored by the KGB, trying to reach
Gorbachev, and he revealed the information, and he revealed the source,
which went straight to the KGB. This was an unbelievable breach of
confidentiality, dangerous, potentially deadly results, and the greatest
irony is that George Herbert Walker Bush had been Director of the CIA
before.
Now, why am I telling this story? Obviously, my first point is,
presidents have fouled up, and have declassified unwittingly, or sometimes
for political purposes, highly sensitive information all the time. I'm not
excusing what Trump did � it looks like he was very sloppy � but the first
thing to note is it's not unusual, this happens a lot. The second thing, and
let's talk about this, is sharing information intelligence with the
Russians. Guys, we've been doing this for nearly 20 years. After 9/11, the
Russians offered us valuable intelligence on the Taliban, on Afghanistan, to
help us fight back against bin Laden, and we've been exchanging intelligence
on terrorists ever since. A lot of people wish we'd exchange more
information; we might have prevented the Boston bombing. So this hysteria
about sharing intelligence with our adversary, no, we are cooperating with
Russia because we have a common enemy.
PAUL JAY: Now, I said in the beginning that I thought we should separate
Trump's intent from a policy, which seems more rational, not to treat Russia
as such an adversary, and try to work both in Syria and other places,
negotiate more things out. But when you do look at the side of intent, I
don't think you can negate or forget about the kind of historic ties that
Trump has with Russian oligarchs. Some people suggest Russian Mafia.
Tillerson's energy play, they would love sanctions lifted on Russia, and I'm
not suggesting they shouldn't be lifted, but the motive here is they want to
do a massive play in the energy sector. So it's not I don't think we
should forget about what drives Trump and his circle around him, which is
they have a very big fossil fuel agenda and a money-making agenda. On the
other hand, that doesn't mean the policy towards Russia isn't rational. I
mean, what do you I don't know if you agree or not.
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, yeah, you're right, those are important points,
and whether you agree or not with people ranging from Ron Wyden to Lindsey
Graham, they're all saying "follow the money," and in this case, I think
they're right. All these probes, and all these suspicions that the Trump
team colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election, that they
were cooperating, even coordinating with the Russians on the hacking, and
then the release, I don't believe it. It could be true � you know, I don't
have access to the evidence � but to me, it seems much more likely that what
will turn up instead are financial crimes or malfeasance. People taking
speaker's fees, people consulting with oligarchs, people aiding You know,
helping with the elections with shady people, and depositing the money in
the Cayman Islands or in Cypriot banks, not declaring income. I think that's
what we're likely to find; I think that's probably what Flynn is guilty of.
But the more serious charge of collusion with an adversary, even of treason
to undermine our election, I doubt it very much. You're right to look at the
energy business money, and sort of big-business oligarchic efforts to just
get rich together.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, because this is so much tied up with partisan politics.
The Democratic Party leadership, you know, Schumer types, they just want to
wound Trump any way they can, and this is a good way to cut some knives
there, to get their knives out. But the real story is the financial
shenanigans, and maybe Flynn was on to that. I'm not Excuse me, not Flynn,
Comey. Maybe Comey was on to that, and maybe that's where this thing will
lead. That's where Trump needs to fear, not the Flynn stuff.
ROBERT ENGLISH: I think you're probably right, and again, I can only
infer what might be going on, what evidence there might be, based on the
subpoenas that are going out, but what we've heard says yeah, financial
records, all these documents, evidence of I mean, let's go back to this
issue that was the scandal of the week about five scandals ago, which means
five days ago, and that was that The reason that Flynn was fired, you'll
recall that after the election but before the inauguration, he met with the
Russian ambassador, and they discussed all kinds of policy issues, including
the possibility of moving towards removing the sanctions. When he got back
to the White House, apparently he told Pence that they talked about other
things, but he didn't admit that the sanctions subject had come up.
Therefore, he lied; therefore, he was fired. And Sally Yates, right, the
From the Attorney General's office, has made an important point that she
briefed the White House on this, she warned that Flynn had been compromised,
because the Russians had something on him now.
Okay, technically they did, but come on, guys, hold on a second. Trump
was about to be inaugurated, right? It wasn't as if he somehow � Flynn �
could undermine a policy of Obama's when there were about five minutes left
in the Obama administration. Secondly, the Russians and the Trump
administration wanted openly � it was no secret � to move towards a removal
of sanctions if they could find cooperation on Ukraine, cooperation on
terror in the Middle East. There's no secret here. Therefore, what did the
Russians have on Flynn that they could have blackmailed him with? How was he
compromised? Yeah, because they'd caught him in a fib, but big deal. You see
how these things are being exaggerated. No doubt Flynn broke the rules, he
told a lie, but it's not a lie It's not the kind of information in the
Russians' possession that's the equivalent of catching him in bed with
another woman, or [inaudible 00:16:53].
PAUL JAY: And you have to even believe that he did tell the lie, because
we're being told he didn't tell Pence. We don't know if he's falling on his
sword to some extent here in order to protect Pence. I mean, who knows the
truth of any of that? And the rest of what he did, as far as we know, with
the Russians is all public. There's a video of him speaking at an RT
interview in Moscow that took place at the same time as this dinner that he
was paid to attend on the 10th anniversary of RT, where he sits near Putin.
There's nothing secret about any of this; this stuff's been out on YouTube
for, like, ages.
ROBERT ENGLISH: So what you have here when you add them up is a sequence
of events or small misdeeds: telling a fib about this here, Trump leaking
classified information there. None of them are of the magnitude that they're
being portrayed with in the media, but when you string them together, it
sounds like a hysterical series of
PAUL JAY: So I can understand the Democratic Party, but in terms of what
people call the permanent state, the deep state, they're very engaged in
this. The leaks from the FBI We still don't, I don't think, unless I
missed something, this thing where he Trump talks to the Russian
ambassador and the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and gives this Reveals this
intelligence. Well, how do we know that? I mean, who's in that room that
leaked that? Or, apparently, after it took place in Washington, some White
House staffers phone the NSA and the CIA Well, you think they've got to
call the heads of these organizations at this kind of level of information.
So who's leaking that stuff? The state apparatus � CIA, FBI, maybe NSA �
they're really antagonistic to this Trump administration. What is that
about?
ROBERT ENGLISH: Again, that's where we started, with not only the battle
over "Should we try to improve relations with Russia, or are they
incorrigible foes?" That's one thing, but now this sort of bureaucratic
infighting, the use of leaks, of innuendo. And again, Trump gives them the
fuel to do so with these continual misdeeds and misstatements. That's
another whole arena of battle, and it's not healthy, right, to have And
it's his fault too. He went to war with the intelligence community on day
one. But this is so dysfunctional. It's causing us much more harm than the
Russians ever could, and
PAUL JAY: We're going to keep this conversation going in a future
segment. I do want to add Anyone who watches The Real News knows this
already. I mean, I think the Trump/Pence administration is going to prove to
be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney. I think it's extremely dangerous
what they have in mind in terms of foreign policy. But all that being said,
let's concentrate on the real stuff. Trump's in Saudi Arabia, and they're
planning some bad stuff in the Middle East, and targeting of Iran, and back
here, we're focusing on really what should be a sideline soap opera.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah. The series, the daily scandals that we're talking
about � the Comey letter today, the leak to the Russians yesterday, on and
on � are kind of distracting us from the bigger picture. Not only the
question of, you know, what are our common interests, if any, with Russia,
and can we seriously work towards them, but also, what are we going to do in
the Middle East, and what are we doing in East Asia? These pivotal foreign
policy strategic issues aren't getting much attention because of the daily
soap opera. You're absolutely right.
Let me just add at the end here � I know we're running out of time � I've
noted the accidental clumsy careless leak that could've had tragic
consequences of the first Bush president. We might also note that the second
Bush presidency, that administration leaked like a sieve from, you know,
exaggerated false intelligence on Iraq to the identity of Valerie Plame, a
CIA operative, when it suited their purposes. And the Obama administration
wasn't a lot better. People like McCain and others were furious at some of
the leaks, whether it was the Stuxnet cyber war tactic that was used against
Iran, to a whole series of other military facts that were leaked selectively
by the Obama administration to serve their purposes. Let's just remember
this context. Mistaken leaks, strategic leaks, dishonest leaks go on all the
time in Washington, and against that backdrop, let's not fall off the cliff
here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians,
about our common enemy, the Islamic State in Syria.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for
joining us on The Real News Network.
Anonymous
,
May 17, 2017 at 2:09 am
Some issues that are not mentioned. First, the 100 billion dollar a year
cost of sanctions which gives Putin and the oligarchs incentive to do a lot
of things. Second, the track record of journalists, human rights advocates
and attorneys being killed in Russia. Third, the funds paid to Trump from
oligarchs via over priced real estate deals.
Guess they all fall into the "strategic issues aren't getting much
attention".
If the Putin administration or oligarchs are found to have acted illegally
in the US it will be a different discussion.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary
Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with
the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.
"This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has
worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep
going."
The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton's house during the investigation.
"We didn't search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which
contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material," he said.
"There should have been a complete search of their residence," the agent pointed out. "That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable.
The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire."
Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we"
and "I've been an investigator."
After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate
in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the
U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.
After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin,
among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert
Mueller.
"Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey
included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,"
the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."
He added, "The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn't go to a grand jury is ridiculous."
According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically
the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside
the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so
and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."
He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack
but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau
inside right now is a mess."
He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone. Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr. president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC. ..."
"... Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today. ..."
"... Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley Guilfoyle. ..."
"... Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump) too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone. ..."
"... Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White House sources. ..."
"... Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with widespread support. ..."
"... However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies like man-made global warming and importing "refugees". ..."
HURRAY! This is good news! Donald Trump could be back after taking a long 4 month bath in the
swamp and playing with crocodiles, piranhas and other vicious creatures.
Trump may finally begin THE PURGE. This is good! Hopefully this is true! Fire everyone except
Steve Bannon! Begin with the Kushners, fire them all, no actually that's not enough, arrest everyone.
Arrest John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, George Soros. Clean the system Mr.
president, that's why the people voted for you, so you can do serious damage in Washington DC.
Incensed by leaks that have come from within his own inner circle, President Donald Trump
is about to take the gloves off in a purge of White House advisers that could begin as early as today.
Speculation continues to swirl around White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who has hindered
Trump with a series of high profile gaffes. As Infowars reported first (before the rest of the mainstream
media followed suit), Trump is seriously considering replacing Spicer with Fox News host Kimberley
Guilfoyle.
In an eyebrow-raising move, Guilfoyle 'liked' one of my tweets in which I linked to a story about
the fact that Trump was considering her for the post, alongside the comment, "I had this story 2
days ago, lazy MSM late again." Could mean nothing. Could mean something. When approached for comment,
Guilfoyle didn't respond.
According to Mike Cernovich, who has scooped the media repeatedly thanks to his White House sources,
the base will be very happy with the decisions Trump is about to make.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTT8RUVv4aw
"His media team, they don't do anything, they're ineffective. Spicer is afraid to confront the
media, afraid to call them out," said Cernovich.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone said the establishment "made the mistake of hitting (Trump)
too hard," despite the fact that Trump attempted to extend an olive branch during the early months
of his presidency. "Now he understands, the gloves will be off, this is a fight to the finish – I
can tell you this, don't ever push Donald Trump into a corner – he is a fighter," said Stone.
Other names potentially on the chopping block include Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief
strategist Steve Bannon, and counsel Don McGahn, according to Axios' Mike Allen, who cites White
House sources.
Jettisoning Bannon would rile Trump's base, whereas an exit for Priebus would be met with
widespread support.
However, the Daily Mail reports that Trump is "relying more" on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump,
something that won't sit well with Trump's base given that both have advocated globalist policies
like man-made global warming and importing "refugees".
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
So there's no wall, and Obama's amnesties look like they are here to
stay. Do you still trust Trump?
Uhhhh. I'm not very happy with
what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his
promises. But this isn't North Korea, and if he doesn't keep his promises
I'm out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him
knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.
I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni's
op-ed in The New York Times
today. Where is the great negotiation? Where
is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed
through was like a practical joke Did we win anything? And this is the
great negotiator?
You said during the election and in columns that if there is no
wall it's the end of America.
Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and
behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trump_vs_deep_state. I have
no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?
We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It's not
like I'm out yet, but boy, things don't look good. I've said to other
people, "It's as if we're in Chicago and Trump tells us he's going to get us
to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New
York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three
days, but I'm a little nervous.
In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding
every which way in the wake of Trump's decision to fire FBI Director Comey.
People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.
The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress,
when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of
emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth
was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely "backed up" on Weiner's
laptop via "backup devices." Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails
out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner's laptop was serving as a storage
device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media's
porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC
emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? "Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands
of emails for posterity."
The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE
HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat.
One, Comey didn't press the investigation into Hillary's personal email server far enough last summer
and fall. He stalled it. He didn't ask for an indictment. That's why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump
didn't fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye.
No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.
The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the
world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election.
The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn't. Then he
publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That's why Trump
just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And
of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should
have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.
The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY
TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily
left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of
that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.
The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS
IS TRUMP'S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign
that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.
I'm waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, "It's all right, folks, I'm
on the case. I'll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking
garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, 'My throat is deep, and I'll
spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you'll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved
in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin."
So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?
I don't know, but the short answer might be: Comey's boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told
Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.
Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants
to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows
which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn't
want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions
wants a predictable FBI. His own.
Joel Pollak, writing at Breitbart, has a simpler answer to the question, why fire Comey now?
Pollak writes :
"But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama's former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News' Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 - that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign
and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey
- which it simply did not have before."
In other words, now Trump can't be accused of firing Comey to stop "the truth" emerging about
a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn't any collusion.
Theoretically, that might be the case-but the spin machine doesn't care about the truth or who
is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp.
Signs come out. People yell and scream.
Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.
For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain
cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos,
and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it's a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All
sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or
provocation.
"... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
"... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
"... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
"... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
"... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
"... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
"... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
"... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
"... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
"... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
"... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
"... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
"... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
"... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
"... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
"... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
"... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
"... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
"... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
Posted on May 9, 2017 by
Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of
FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further
doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.
Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation,
but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties
riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation
of being a straight shooter.
And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger;
it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox
led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the
coverup is worse than the crime".
To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some
key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to
at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement
supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal.
Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.
More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging
too hard into Trump-Russia connections .
We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney
general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights
to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless
move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.
In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public
trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years
of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I
encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham,
a South Carolina Republican.
Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and
associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed
William Sessions.
Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The
move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically
compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems
been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."
Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning"
action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".
The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much
noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having
peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer
of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.
Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports
Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section,
some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here
are the two key remarks:
I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt
"intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton
(which was not his job) render him unfit for office.
Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause
Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually
the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors.
So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they
are.
What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly
on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the
announcement to clearly outline the stakes.
"Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.
Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That
would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.
FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year
term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously.
Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director
or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.
I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will
be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't
care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.
Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs
message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down
@Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation.
They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought
or any consideration of consequences.
You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because
of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.
"Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"
"We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"
Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.
Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what
you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and
if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.
Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just
business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa
who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know
how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."
Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:
Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite.
And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the
divide.
I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion
of the voting population that is.)
The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think
this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact,
lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.
So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps,
really.
And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:
All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the
wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy
to drive ad rates.
"Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."
How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about
Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.
Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA
of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have
a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..
You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will
his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.
Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal
support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats.
Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still
hate them.
Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed,
could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than
they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave
Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.
The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary
(Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre
reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.
They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago.
In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since
they don't seem to be happening anyway.
Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the
NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.
Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside
of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more
protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.
Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen
charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self
on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people
who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont
cross
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against
people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who
don't fall in line.
"Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'
It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.
I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade
from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.
People are tapped out mentally with political talk.
People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail,
Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury
1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.
I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate
missing the 2 minute hate.
I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people
who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to
string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political
capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.
I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They
are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton
and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.
It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate
that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.
I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation
pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..
The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical
and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.
If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents,
quite unintentionally.
I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence
the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.
If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying
out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness.
I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues
with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.
I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity
that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way
to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately
it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )
Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are
some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?
You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already
famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage
during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican
and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.
And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated
a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before
you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.
All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also
has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X
has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people
what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.
We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:
1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine.
Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that.
And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed
(but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).
2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral
3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey
4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and
Reagan did far more serious meddling)
5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development.
One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class.
There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money
in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies,
owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of
cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible
too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.
So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been
looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.
Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure
there were not US citizens.
We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.
Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's
office/studio unit.
Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.
They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching.
And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.
Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant
reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.
Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless
but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.
Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new
Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist
factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan
re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.
"... But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is dangerous groupthink . ..."
"... He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts. ..."
"... It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity, his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a fork in, Trump is done. ..."
"... Curiously I've come to the opposite conclusion: Hillary Clinton is done. Mark my words. ..."
"... This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest. ..."
"... But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional hypocrites. ..."
"... President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct. ..."
"... Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama. ..."
"... Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO) ..."
"... Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton. At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:[..] ..."
"... Reminds me of a little passage I read somewhere about a dish served cold. ..."
"... Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV, wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he was safely out of town. ..."
"... The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites, and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism. ..."
"... Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not be pressured to testify against her. ..."
"... Not to mention, jackrabbit, Hillary was never sworn in during her Saturday interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Trump fires Comey due to his political meddling but ... Trump won't prosecute Clinton about her email server. ..."
"... Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117, except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant. ..."
"... Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons. ..."
"... Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time. ..."
"... The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going for al-Nusra's head scalp... ..."
"... so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the accessory to Clinton's sedition... ..."
"... Does Russia interfere in U.S. politics more than Israel does? ..."
"... Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting to the press?? ..."
"... I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. ..."
President Trump dismissed the Director of the FBI James Comey on recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General, who had served under
Obama, and the Attorney General. The dismissal and the recommendation memos can be read
here.
Comey is accused of usurping the Attorney General's
authority on several occasions. In July 2016 Comey decided and publicly announced the closing of the Clinton email-investigations
without a recommendation of prosecution. He publicly announced the reopening of the investigation in October only to close it again
a few days later.
At the first closing of the investigation Comey held a press conference and
said:
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That, by far, exceeded his competency, Since when can a police officer decide how "reasonable" a prosecutor may or may not be,
and make public announcements about that? Clinton's running of a private email server broke several laws. Anyone but she would have
been prosecuted at least for breaching secrecy and security regulations.
It is not the job of the police to decide about prosecutions. The police is an investigating agent of the public prosecutors office.
It can make recommendations about prosecutions but not decide about them. Recommendations are to be kept confidential until they
are decided upon by the relevant authority - the prosecutor. There are additional issues with Comey. His agents used
sting or rather entrapment to lure many hapless
idiots into committing "ISIS terror acts". A full two third of such acts in the U.S. would not have been though about without FBI
help. Comey himself had signed
off on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
The formal dismissal of Comey is, in my view, the right thing to do. It should have been done earlier.
But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered
with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia
campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump
was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is
dangerous groupthink.
There is no evidence - none at all - that Russia "interfered" with the U.S. election. There is no evidence - none at all - that
Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. The Democratic Senator Dianna Feinstein, who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well as
the Select Committee on Intelligence, recently confirmed that publicly
(vid) immediately
after she
had again been briefed by the CIA:
Blitzer mentioned that Feinstein and other colleagues from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had visited CIA headquarters
on Tuesday to be briefed on the investigation. He then asked Feinstein whether she had evidence, without disclosing
any classified information, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It would be interesting to know why James Comey was sacked now and not earlier before the "Russia interfered in the elections"
narrative had much chance to damage Trump's presidency. He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was
focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts.
It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity,
his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither
the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a
fork in, Trump is done.
Had Madam Clinton won the election, this would not have been possible. The organisation she headed would have taken immediate
control of all available power bases and would not have created such opportunity for attack.
The next one will be "Operation Gaslight ". The storyline will be that Trump is unstable and needs to be removed by his cabinet.
Trumps many enemies will never stop. There is too much at stake.
All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do as he/she is
told.
This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that
long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't
the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest.
If perchance there was any motive other than inspiring yet more vapid chatter, we can be equally certain that is not going
to rate a mention from any of the hack pols or their media enablers until long after this storm in a teacup has subsided.
Out of curiosity: does anyone know the very first time this was said about Trump? I'm sure we can all agree this much though:
don't hold your breath on it being the last time it's said about Trump..
Recall Trump was written off through the Primaries as he offed 16 candidates. In the election cycle down to the wire HRC had
a 90% chance. Newsweek published edition cover page Madame President. (Dewey anyone?) I dislike that the Trump presidency is a
family affair -- Jared Kushner will be the stick and fork; the second high profile firing that should have been done.
But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional
hypocrites.
Flashback: New York Times - July 19, 1993 -> President William J. Clinton fires FBI Director
WASHINGTON, July 19- President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.
Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J.
Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their
first meeting.
Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, "We cannot have a leadership
vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's
history is brought to a close." Defiant to the End
But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton's announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions -- his
right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall -- railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly
six years into his 10-year term.
"Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be
as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation," he said.
"It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign."
Mr. Clinton said that after reviewing Mr. Sessions's performance, Attorney General Janet Reno had advised him that Mr. Sessions
should go. "After a thorough review by the Attorney General of Mr. Sessions's leadership of the F.B.I., she has reported to
me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau
Despite the President's severe tone, he seemed to regret having to force Mr. Sessions from his post. He said he had hoped
that the issue could be settled at the Justice Department without the necessity of using his authority to dismiss the Director,
who has a 10-year term but may be removed by the President at any time.
But Mr. Sessions's intransigence had festered into an awkward situation for Mr. Clinton.
A Republican stranded in a Democratic Administration, Mr. Sessions was appointed to head the F.B.I. by President Ronald
Reagan in 1987 amid the turmoil of the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Sessions arrived as a respected judge from San Antonio, but
after five and a half years in office, he leaves with his star fallen, his agency adrift and his support at the F.B.I. all
but drained away. Troubled Tenure."[.]
Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have
said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama.
Trump has a bad temper and demonstrates erratic behavior, like Hillary. The handlers keep it covered up until they no longer
keep it covered up. They let it slip that Hillary frequently blew up and used the F word vigorously as she berated her underlings
(which are everyone including Clenis). Trump is, likewise, a genuine asshole. He's not faking that part.
If McCabe is next to go , as he should be , this could represent a significant swamp-draining accomplishment for Trump. Depending
on who replaces them , of course.
The Rosenstein letter provided considerable legitimacy to Trump's move , considering the bipartisan support Rosenstein achieved.
It wouldn't be a bad move for Trump to choose a replacement for Comey that comes with Rosenstein's strong endorsement. A Sessions
endorsement would be about one-half as valuable.
did, 'All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. ... '
well, amend that to are pushed as a distraction for the masses and i'll certainly agree. there are so many levels at "arms'
length" now that they're really just filling in the alibis for the 'historians' ... schlesinger types who'll connect all the dots
once the deeds are done and show us the tragi-comedy in five acts. the masses are undistracted. people know it's all pure bullshit.
that they're being played and sold down the river. it would be really great if we did something about it. just for the hell of
it.
Obama and Hillary, however, addressed us in whole sentences and presented clearly structured concepts and arguments. Trump spits
out 140-character tweets at us from the early hours of the morning.
I see a keen distinction there.
Posted by: ralphieboy | May 10, 2017 7:23:56 AM | 15
... forgetting, of course, that most politicians (and an only slightly smaller proportion of ordinary folks) start talking,
or writing, or dialing, before they've decided precisely what they intend to say.Trump, and probably Putin, thinks before he communicates.
And if the result isn't worth saying, he shuts up. Same as Putin.
Agree. McCabe should follow Comey out the door. Patience grasshopper, one-at-a- time. If I were Hillary, (thank G-d for small
mercies), after reading Rosenstein's Memo for the Attorney General, I 'd be lawyering up with my wet work gang.
This excerpt is a tell; confirming indeed there was some simmering mutiny within the FBI house. Judge Nap called it.
[..] As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of
Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.[.]
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director,
pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch
would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO)
Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone
who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone
very close to Clinton.
At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking
about:[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
in the district of criminals, (aka D.C.), we find not only a swamp, but a few deep cess-pools.
So Trump includes in his firing letter that he appreciates the fact that Comey told him personally on three separate occasions
that he was not the subject of investigation. What's that doing there?
Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV,
wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential
historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he
was safely out of town.
The Senate investigation just got started. This business about six months of investigation failing to produce a shred of evidence
and therefore the whole matter should be dropped isn't going to fly. The same people who natter on about how we masses, like mushrooms
kept in the dark and nurtured with bullshit, should disregard all this bafflegab about impropriety also say we should accept their
conclusion that there's nothing to see here and that it's time to move on. That ain't happening.
Senator Al Franken, who's insipid alter-ego George Smiley on Saturday Night Live was the epitome of insecurity, has turned
out to be a formidable poser of very tough questions to anyone unfortunate to be summoned before the senate panel. These senate
guys don't fuck around and will not be stonewalled. We're in for some very interesting television.
Comey will land on his feet in some corporate gig, from whence he came. The only interesting aspect is whether or not his replacement
will restore any smidgen of credibility to the FBI by acting on a basis of law or if the political games will continue. My guess
would be that the plutocracy will see that their candidate is installed as FBI Director and at a minimum this person will remain
at least neutral to the plutocracy's rule, silence being consent. That would be the big big silence on the Clinton criminality
as it is intertwined with plutocratic rule. More of the same only more so as the FBI and co-conspirators keep the plot to assassinate
any public leaders dusted off in case another Martin Luther King, another Occupy movement or some such should arise.
DiD @ 7 said: "All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do
as he/she is told."
Well said, an IMO, absolutely spot on.
I think there are people above the Law, history proves that. HRC AND Mr. Trump are part of that group. I fully expect that
nothing will happen to either. As DiD said, " A distraction for the masses( sheep)."
The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites,
and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism.
The musical chairs show in Washington is meaningless. The Democrats hated Comey but now that he's fired they love him because
they can use it to attack Trump. It's all political theatre and should be regarded as such. As others have said, another chump
willing to take orders will replace Comey and will surely carry out the same bad policies at the FBI.
Trump was just in the Oval Office with that imperial criminal punk, Kissinger, ironically, Nixon's NSA and Trump blurted out that
he fired Comey because he wasn't doing a good job.
The pot calling the kettle black is an understatement.
I don't give a damn one way or another who Trumpster fires; what I do give a damn about is abuse of power and manipulation
of the truth and Trump is repeatedly guilty of both.
No such dictatorial power should ever again be vested in that position and in a person who is prone to exceed his competencies.
And that's exactly how I would describe Herr Drumpf, danke!
Here's a great example of integrity. Try it sometime!:
This has nothing to do with Comey incompetence or the man himself. This is only about Trump abusing power as he's been doing
since DAY ONE. He just took it to the next level...that's all!
- Wolf Blitzer was once employed by AIPAC.
- Comey simply stepped on too many (sensitive) toes, both Republican & Democratic. In that regard it was a matter of time that
he was fired. It would have happened as well if Hillary Clinton had been elected to become the new president.
- But I also fear that a new FBI director (as appointed by one Jeff Sessions) will be as rightwing as one Jeff Sessions or even
worse.
Great post, b, and likklemore, your comments are appreciated.
What is troubling to me with all of this is how politicized Obama's Cabinet/team became. It is becoming more and more obvious
his appointments were made to serve him NOT the country and the public is witnessing the fallout from such authoritarian style
of leadership.
Comey is both a victim and beneficiary of this politicization. His testimony last week was more forthcoming than in previous
hearings, but what spoke volumes was his reaction to the impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona. He
suggested his concerns about Lynch being compromised regarding the Clinton email investigation were confirmed during that meeting
while stating it was the last straw so to speak.
This pattern of politicization was obviously meant to continue under Hillary's leadership by cementing a permanent political
class in DC who would serve the president rather than all of us outside of Washington. Some term this as the 'UniParty' - a majority
of R and D's working in tandem to re orient DC machinations into a global governing body.
The neo's - libs and cons - are giddy over resigning the U.S. Constitution and the rest of America's founding papers into the
trash heap of history. Their march toward globalization is hindered by those pesky documents. But what these globalists never
counted on was a Trump win and, more importantly, conservatives gaining power in 28 states, six states shy of holding a Constitutional
Convention.
Now that Hillary lost, Obama and team are pulling together an organizational structure to stave off wins in those six states
while also trying to peel away those few who turned red in 2016.
This is the new political battleground - conservatives fighting for a constitutional convention and neo's fighting to remain
relevant. With Comey being gone, and soon McCabe and et al, the FBI has a shot at shedding the politicization of the department
and returning to its investigative roots.
This is the reason for Robby Mook's 'terrified' comment when learning of Comey's firing. He and his globalist cohorts should
be concerned, but it's Hillary who really needs to be terrified.
Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not
be pressured to testify against her.
Why is it such a big thing? Some people here seems to take talking points from neocon media. He was fired because Trump didnt
have confidence in him, simply as that.
Not sad to see Comey go. I didn't think he was doing a good job, albeit he was put in a position where he had to tread carefully.
I guess he did "ok" with that careful treading. Unsure of Trump's motivations to fire him but not that surprised. As others have
posited here, Clinton would have done the same. Comey was probably at least partially prepared and possibly has a sinecure lined
up as I type this.
IMO, this isn't the worst of Trump's alleged "offenses" by a long shot. It certainly does provide a distraction from all the
other sh*t swirling around Trump, like Kushner selling US citizenships to high priced Chinese gangsters, like Trump's various
cabinet picks arresting citizens for questioning them the "wrong way" or laughing at them, like Trump's decisions to ruin the
environment and give away public lands to his rich pals, like the travesty of TrumpDon'tCare AHCA (which could end up even worse
after the Senate gets done with it - No women on the Senate committee, just great).
Yes a nifty distraction while Trump and his plutocrat cronies rob us all blind. Duly noted the Democrats engage in their own
dog 'n pony sideshow distractions re russia, Russia RUSSIA hysteria. All to avoid having to, you know, DO something about their
own disaster of a corporate-bought-off "party" and avoid having to do one d*mn thing that benefits their traditional constituents,
as opposed to ensuring that their Plutocratic masters are happy.
Every analysis of any current US political events that says anything about Clinton losing the election is deranged or dishonest.
There are no exceptions.
Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation
is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117,
except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary
of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was
his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant.) The thing for Comey, and his natural human need to at least pretend to
be a genuine human being, is, the Russia hacks the election is exactly the same kind of fake scandal, something arcane with dark,
dark hints of treason! treason! Comey can't suddenly discover sanity when the BS is flying at Trump, after having vociferously
claimed those were really Clark bars for the years prior.
The OP doesn't quite have the nerve to explain clearly how the supposed loser has the clout to make Comey dish on Trump. Or
the effrontery to clearly avow Benghazi/email server/Clinton cash/pizzagate were all gospel. Nonetheless it is still Trumpery.
Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable
prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons.
Just read about Comey history with Clintons. He has been giving them cover a long time.
sl - Yep, I concur. And I think he had to protect whatever deal was agreed to b/w Lynch, Obama and Clinton. I'm not even sure
I'd call it a deal, but rather an order. I'm sure if he didn't adhere there would have been some hefty consequences to pay.
Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being
fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time.
SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 1:12:56 Add to the long list:
Seth Rich, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK jr, princess Diana, Michael Hastings, mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, Phillip Marshall
with family, Michael Connell, that policeman from the WTC 1993 bombing investigation, Clinton body count, that German press insider,
Gary Webb ...
The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going
for al-Nusra's head scalp...
so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice,
the accessory to Clinton's sedition...
there's probably a multi-million dollar book deal in the pipeline. - Trump DOES have some very "interesting" connections to
Russia and some shady Russian persons. But this is the result of his own "wheeling & dealing".
@ h. Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And
I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting
to the press??
Yep, Rosenstein is a law man. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to learn Grand Jury indictments handed down sometime in
the coming months for Hillary's arrest. Mr. Comey served as an obstacle to the DOJ to prosecute. Now that Sessions/Rosenstein,
both law men, are heading the DOJ nothing will surprise me. Nothing.
Does Russia interfere in the elections and governing institutions of others as much as the US does?
I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places
like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.
It sounds like Hillary Clinton boxed Comey in – in more ways that just that the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton. If that new
email is any indication, she very likely coerced him directly, pushing him to play the 'no intent' defense for Clinton and her aides.
Notable quotes:
"... The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret. ..."
"... As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here. ..."
"... I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time. ..."
The statements by the White House and Sessions cite two issues. The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton
email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently
revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This
is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered
confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation
undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having
overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret.
The second issue raised by both Sessions and the White House is Comey's inability to "effectively lead the Bureau" given what
has occurred since last summer. That is a legitimate concern. When the Clinton investigation was shelved, there was considerable
dissent in the bureau, with many among the rank-and-file believing that the egregious mishandling of classified information should
have some consequences even if Comey was correct that a prosecution would not produce a conviction.
And the handling of "Russiagate" also angered some experienced agents who believed that the reliance on electronic surveillance
and information derived from intelligence agencies was the wrong way to go. Some called for questioning the Trump-campaign suspects
who had surfaced in the initial phases of the investigation, a move that was vetoed by Comey and his team. It would be safe to say
that FBI morale plummeted as a result, with many junior and mid-level officers leaving their jobs to exploit their security clearances
in the lucrative government contractor business.
There has been considerable smoke about both the Clinton emails and the allegations of Russian interference in last year's election,
but I suspect that there is relatively little fire. As Comey asserted, the attempt to convict a former secretary of state on charges
of mishandling information without any ability to demonstrate intent would be a mistake and would ultimately fail. No additional
investigation will change that reality.
As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the
U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political
spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian
interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the
Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here.
I believe that the simplest explanation for the firing of Comey is the most likely: Donald Trump doesn't like him much and doesn't
trust him at all. While it is convenient to believe that the FBI director operates independently from the politicians who run the
country, the reality is that he or she works for the attorney general, who in turn works for the president. That is the chain of
command, like it or not. Any U.S. president can insist on a national-security team that he is comfortable with, and if Trump is willing
to take the heat from Congress and the media over the issue he certainly is entitled to do what he must to have someone he can work
with at the FBI.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
Brian, May 10, 2017 at 10:39 am
Jul 7, 2016 Justice Vs. "Just Us": Of Course the FBI Let Hillary off the Hook. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone
is surprised by this.
"Mr. Comey's appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire
at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting."
" . . . but there was a certain inevitability about it given the bureau's clear inability to navigate the troubled political
waters that developed early last summer and have continued ever since."
I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have
been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time.
But that he is gone, I think he was surprised only by the manner certainly not the inevitability.
Blind sided by the manner certainly not the course.
Mark Thomason, May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
True. But it is also true that NOBODY likes Comey much or trusts him at all. He has no defenders.
Trump has attackers. That is very different. They'd attack him for anything he does, they attack every day. This outrage is
only the latest, and will be repeated at every hint of opportunity.
Here they agree the guy needed to be fired and said themselves that Hillary was going to do it. But Trump did it, and that
is the problem.
Kurt Gayle, May 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Please consider the that the explanation for the Comey firing is simpler:
(1) The Deputy Attorney-General is the FBI Director's boss.
(2) Trump's nominee for the position of Deputy Attorney-General, Rod Rosenstein, although nominated on January 13th, was only
confirmed by the Senate on April 25th. Rosenstein took the oath of office the following day, Wednesday, April 26th, two weeks
ago today.
(3) Immediately upon assuming his duties as the Justice Department official directly responsible for the FBI, Mr. Rosenstein
determined that there were major problems concerning the FBI. Rosenstein reported his finding in a letter to his boss, Attorney-General
Sessions:
(4) "Over the past year the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire
Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens."
(5) "The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the
case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director
should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
(6) "Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release
derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in
the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously "
(7) "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises
authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the
judge and jury determine the facts."
(8) "Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether
he would 'speak' about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or 'conceal' it. 'Conceal' is a loaded
term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing
anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context,
silence is not concealment."
(9) "My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras
and both political parties."
(10) "I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion
of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a
Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the
Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."
With respect to Deputy Attorney-General Rosenstein's heading of the investigation into possible Russian interference in the
November election, the fact that Mr. Rosenstein would head the investigation (Attorney-General Sessions having recused himself)
was known to the Senate - and the Senate committee questioned him on his views on the matter - for a full week before the Senate
confirmed Mr. Rosenstein by a 94-6 vote.
MM, May 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm
I'm pleased to see this vociferous call by high-level Democratic officials for a U.S. Independent Counsel to investigate this
matter. It's a relief that these same officials are taking this stance from a position of principled consistency, as they were
the loudest in calling for independent investigations of the previous administration's questionable activities.
For example: NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative
groups, and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton, all of which the Justice Department at the time
was either directly involved in or responsible for burying any serious inquiries
Ellimist000, May 10, 2017 at 2:55 pm
MM,
"NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative groups,
and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton "
You're not wrong, but the reason nothing happened was that stuff of this nature has gone on from both sides since the Cold
War started (different names and techniques, of course). If you really wanted the Dems to suddenly see the light, under the 1st
black president no less, then I hope you are awaiting the GOP's ethics censure on Trump with great anticipation
Otto Zeit, May 10, 2017 at 4:02 pm
What baffles me is, why would the Democrats want the "Russiagate" inquiry to be left in the hands of a man who has already
shown himself to be blown by the winds of political partisanship?
MM, May 10, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Ellimist000,
I'd love to see any President censured by Congress, for anything, especially by his or her own party. But even that won't cause
the Hypocritical Old Party to see the light. The universal philosophy in a 2-party system like this one is to 1) never admit any
wrongdoing of one's own nor hold any objective ethical standard of behavior; and 2) declare the other party pure evil, all the
time.
The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg
now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human
history capable of adapting to the world it created?"
The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim."
But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for
us [Facebook]."
The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend
to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred,
for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."
But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump
won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes.
"In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump
resistance and fear."
"A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he
wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"
The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives
previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from
nations associated with terrorism.
The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg
now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human
history capable of adapting to the world it created?"
The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim."
But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for
us [Facebook]."
The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend
to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred,
for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."
But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump
won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes.
"In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump
resistance and fear."
"A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he
wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"
The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives
previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from
nations associated with terrorism.
"... The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened last November a little more likely. ..."
"... What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And then they need to deliver. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7: ..."
"... Our courtier press is worse than useless. The days of Walter Cronkite are but a distant memory. ..."
Vinyl records are back in vogue...apparently broken records are back, too, as Krugman reminds
us in virtually every one of his columns these days.
What Krugman could be writing about: "Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise
at the economic disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to
represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly
predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed
off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they
were making what happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class
people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education was a lot of student
loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this they made the disaster
a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest, in the manner of the
New York Times, is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices of the good people
of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for
the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not
enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need
to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material
harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different
next time. And then they need to deliver. "
"Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads
could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7:"
"But hiring another prominent writer whose ideology hems close to that of the nation's elites
- in this case, fossil fuel corporations who are polluting the world and advocates of Western
military might - is hardly adding intellectual diversity to the pages of the Times."
So, the liberal elites are the Appalachian coal miners?
Trump won because he appealed to the NY Times elites?
"It could change that by hiring some of his prominent backers: philosopher Cornel West, Jacobin
editor Bhaskar Sunkara, civil rights scholar Michelle Alexander, labor organizer Jonathan Tasini,
and former Nevada Assemblywoman and organizer Lucy Flores could all make strong additions."
These people are effective because they have convinced voters to elect socialists across the
US, just like Bernie, easily defeating the right-wingers the NY Times has attacked, like Cruz,
Perry, Trump, et al?
"The Times could fix this by hiring some of the more thoughtful Trump backers, or at least
writers who have documented his appeal. For instance, there is Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who
admires Trump's powers of persuasion and correctly predicted that he would be elected."
So, if one admires the Chinese leadership for their economic policies of spreading the wealth
by creating hundreds of millions of jobs paying high wages (for China) paid for with high taxes
and high prices (for China), does that mean you want to live under Chinese rule?
I admire the Chinese authoritarians for embracing Keynes and FDR and Galbraith, something you
give lip service to, but actually oppose in policy.
You are just as free lunch as Cato and Heritage and AEI and the Kochs, just picking different
winners from unsustainable explosion of debt.
BTW, I like Bacevich, except he argues that Obama had as much power as the Chinese authoritarians,
and the Congress, the people, the Constitution are irrelevant.
He argued that Obama had the power to ignore all the laws passed by Congress, and had the power
to ignore all the voters, because Obama's problem was failing to do what the small number of elites
wanted, elites who can't get any one elected in even the liberal elite enclaves.
"The Times could break real ground by hiring talented millennial writers like the Washington
Post's Elizabeth Bruenig or Demos's Sean McElwee. The Times could also go even younger, including
the voices of Americans who are rarely heard: high-schoolers."
Hmm, so WaPo is now in touch with the masses?
What about NPR and PBS which has programs to train and give recording equipment to to kids
so they can do reporting, and then get their stories aired? Are public broadcasting really dominating
youth markets?
As a liberal, I automatically seek to falsify claims by anyone regardless of policy position.
I'm a Keynesian in the Galbraith mode, but I will criticize Keynesian arguments just like conservative
figured out how to do, but in reducio absurdim to illustrate the weak argument by the Keynesian
and logical fallacy of the conservative critique.
"They could hire, for instance, leading climatologist James Hansen or environmental lawyer
Erin Brockovich."
Again, to people who utterly failed to get anyone elected, local, State, or Federal, to get
anything done.
Hansen has been a disaster in that he helped speed Trump into the White House by being a Don
Quinto talking at oil pipelines, by inspiring tens of thousands of young people to drive gas guzzlers
to anti oil pipeline protests.
Hey, Hansen and Bernie promise the free lunch of no oil and gas wells and pipelines, but plenty
of cheap gasoline for cars and trucks and SUVs and cheap heating for homes.
The Ministry of Truth-Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania.
For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]-was startlingly different from
any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete,
soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston Smith stood it
was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans
of the Party:
The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and
corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings
of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that
from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the
homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The
Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.
The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained
law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names,
in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty....
The Ministry of Truth - Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania.
For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]- was startlingly different from
any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete,
soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just
possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the
Party:
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country here)-first voters. ..."
"... Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage. ..."
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to
vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the
crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they
are to believe the lies.
Started watching
500
Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from
it... had to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right
before bed (unless one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people
should be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal
thugs is what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment
in time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as
most other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try
something new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes
is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of
how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that
I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of
country here)-first voters.
Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional
electoral system, a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition
candidate to gain enough popular votes to win.
Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor
are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready
to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage.
@"somebody" In the depths of the Depression, Comrade Vissarionovich sought loans from Wall
Street to industrialize Soviet industry. Wall Street was happy to oblige: the rest of the
world was on its knees. Stalin knew what was coming; he had read Mein Kampf; he had fought the
Whites. No doubt Wall Street thought they could usurp the Bolshevik revolution. They were
wrong.
"... Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia. ..."
"... During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. ..."
"... The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue. ..."
"... None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning. ..."
Four issues got Donald Trump elected president: immigration, free trade, political correctness,
and the quest for American world hegemony along with the wars that it spawned. If he is to be reelected,
he must deliver on all four.
Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration
is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have
seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials
race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers
from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised,
we are going to seek better relations with Russia.
During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which
they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. Most of
their militaries are suited only to the parade ground, and a small parade ground at that; the entire
German Army now has only 225 tanks. It would have trouble taking Luxembourg.
President Trump was the antiwar candidate, but we hear nothing from his White House about ending
the wars in Afghanistan or, more broadly, the Middle East. Go ahead and defeat ISIS, at least in
the sense of preventing it from holding territory. But what then? Wiser Fourth Generation entities,
or non-state forces, such as Hezbollah, will operate within hollowed-out states rather than attempt
to become a state. And ISIS, like al-Qaeda, is merely one head of the Fourth Generation hydra. How
do we preserve the state system itself in the face of the challenge Fourth Generation War poses?
The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary
to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have
large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was
its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal
accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions
at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part
of Russia, continue.
None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to
the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War,
regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until
doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform
and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning.
Why? What has led President Trump to surrender to the establishment on foreign policy without
even a fight? Several theories are in circulation. One is that the president is less comfortable
with foreign-policy and defense issues than with domestic policy, knows he can't do everything, and
is tired of media screams that he is going to blow up the world. He has therefore turned foreign
and defense policy over to Vice President Pence, who is an establishment thinker, likely under the
influence of neoconservatives. One would think that that bunch's spectacular failures under President
George W. Bush would have forced them out of town. But that isn't how Washington works. Repeated
policy failure is no bar to political success, especially if someone has access to gobs of money,
as the neocons do.
Another theory is that the White House has determined that the so-called deep state makes any
real policy change impossible. All the Trump people think they can do is try to expose the deep state
in a long-term effort to delegitimize it. If this is true, there are some facts behind it. The deep
state-a conglomeration of federal employees, contractors, business allies on Wall Street, and essentially
anyone who benefits from the status quo-is powerful in both foreign and defense policy circles. To
talk about military reform is to threaten the single largest honey pot on earth. The status quo in
foreign policy-which is to say a quest for world hegemony, for Jacobin ideas of democracy and "human
rights"-has tremendous ideological backing within the State Department and much of the rest of the
government, the media, and academia. Even for a president who enjoys saying, "You're fired," these
are hard nuts to crack.
But
if Mr. Trump is to have a successful presidency, he must find a vise for cracking them. Turning foreign
and defense policy over to the Republican establishment guarantees more failures of the kind we know
all too well. We will start new wars, then lose them. If those wars are with either Russia or China,
the scope of the defeats could be historic. We will pour more trillions of dollars into the sand.
And the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation will grow, spread, and win.
At home, by failing to deliver on one of his four most important campaign pledges, President Trump
will weaken himself. He won the election because enough people voted against the establishment, both
its Republican and Democratic wings, and those voters will not turn out again if he merely puts the
Republican establishment in power. To the contrary, those voters will again seek someone who is anti-establishment,
this time with the seriousness and persistence to fight the establishment and win. President Trump's
success in the 2016 primaries will bring such people into the fray. And the president will, in the
end, get trumped.
William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare
Handbook.
Some comments are over top, but the term "Kosher Nostra" is pretty interesting. Jared's father sevred a jail term...
Notable quotes:
"... 'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States ..."
"... In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs ..."
"... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation ..."
"... Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard. ..."
"... He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut. ..."
"... They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment? ..."
The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please,
including even large parts of a country's political system and government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Jewish-American organized crime":
'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or
Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza
nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation
of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in
the United States
In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia
criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .
Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations
since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation
"
Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT
@wayfarer
Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.
He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students
from his school didn't make the cut.
As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL
diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.
They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How
did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still
living – did they get special tax treatment?
It is interesting to compare the dicussion in 2015 with the current situation...
Notable quotes:
"... While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement, racial hostility also has a significant impact on support. ..."
"... In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO, requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting. ..."
"... Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16! ..."
"... The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party. ..."
"... "Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment." ..."
"... Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are. ..."
"... Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote). ..."
"... And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character." ..."
"... I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer. ..."
"... I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina"). ..."
"... The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts. That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content. ..."
"... Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall. ..."
"... People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated. ..."
"... True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned it into a huge trough (possibly by accident). ..."
"... I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on the table. ..."
With Trump and Fox now on opposite sides and the Republican
establishment eager to quash his threat to run next year as a third party candidate, which would
virtually guarantee a Democratic victory, conservatives began to choose sides. Erick Erickson,
a paid Fox contributor who runs the politically powerful RedState website, publicly
disinvited Trump to an Atlanta
gathering at which most other Republican candidates appeared.
Of particular interest, I think, is that two of talk radio's most powerful voices,
Rush Limbaugh and
Mark Levin, quickly came to Trump's defense. I suspect this was as much a market-driven decision
as an honest personal one – talk radio has long catered to the more downscale, less educated wing
of conservatism, where
most Trump supporters dwell. Whatever else one thinks of Limbaugh and Levin, they are enormously
useful allies in the sort of fight Trump is waging.
It is too soon to know whether Trump is in this for the long haul, but I would not underestimate
his ego or willingness to spend freely from his vast fortune to secure the Republican nomination.
Early signs are that his support remains firm in post-debate polls and he is still leading
the pack. If the Republican field stays divided, preventing consolidation around the strongest
non-Trump candidate, one cannot dismiss his chances of success.
Of more importance to me is that if the forces for and against Trump play out as they have
so far, with Fox and Tea Party leaders siding with the GOP establishment while talk radio and
large numbers of the Tea Party grassroots are committed to Trump, we may see the crackup of the
Republican coalition that controls Congress, many state legislatures and governorships. The Tea
Party will go down in history as just another populist movement that lacked staying power and
Donald Trump will be its William Jennings Bryan.
Paul Krugman:
Tea and
Trump_vs_deep_state: Memo to pollsters: while I'm having as much fun as everyone else watching the unsinkable
Donald defy predictions of his assured collapse, what I really want to see at this point is a
profile of his supporters. What characteristics predispose someone to like this guy, as opposed
to accepting the establishment candidates? ...
OK, here's my guess: they look a lot like Tea
Party supporters. And we do know a fair bit about that group.
First of all, Tea Party supporters are for the most part not working-class, at least
in the senses that group is often defined. They're
relatively
affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.
While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement,
racial hostility also has a significant impact on support.
So maybe Trump's base is angry, fairly affluent white racists - sort of like The Donald himself,
only not as rich? And maybe they're not being hoodwinked? ...
Again, this is just guesswork until we have a real profile of typical Trump supporter. But
for what it's worth, I think the Trump phenomenon is much more grounded in fundamentals than the
commentariat yet grasps.
I like Bruce Bartlett since he has the capacity to change his mind when confronted by facts,
but what is so appealing about conservatism...that people gravitate to?
"If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?"
The promise of a free lunch. That is the thing Reagan and his economists sold America, the
promise of a free lunch. If we get rid of unions, they you will be paid more and get richer because
the union bosses will not be taking a big chunk of your paycheck to make themselves rich.
If we cut taxes, you will have more money in your pocket and you will also get more free services
once the private sector does what government does cheaper.
If we deregulate the banks then your mortgage interest rates will fall below the interest rate
cap imposed by the Fed and the banks will pay higher interest on your savings than the Fed allows
with the interest rate cap.
If we deregulate the banks and make loan sharking legal, you will be able to borrow money without
a job or assets to get rich.
If we eliminate capital gains taxes then the price on your house will increase to infinity
even if the roof caves in because capital always gain value if the government does not tax it.
If we get rid of the EPA, then everything will be cheaper and your getting richer from paying
less will mean less pollution because pollution falls with wealth.
If lazy incompetent government workers are fired, they will start new businesses and create
wealth by creating millions of jobs - just look at K Street.
The way to get rich is to go into debt.
The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of liberals.
The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of minorities.
The solution to every problem is more guns.
The solution to every problem is more prisons.
The solution to every problem is lower taxes.
The solution to every problem is less government and more prisons.
The solution to every problem is no accountability.
The solution to every problem is to drop more bombs or start another war. Fixed it.
bakho said...
Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected.
The TeaParty has remained active. They are organized in opposition to Obama. The will remain in
protest against the RINOs. The religious right has social organizations in the megachurches. In
the Midwest, there has been infighting between mainstream GOP who run local govt and Tea Party
and Religious Right.
Mitch -> bakho...
"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."
He did? Plus what more do you want from him, besides single payer?
Peter K. -> bakho...
"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the
elected."
I don't buy that. He regularly says if you want a President or Congress to do something, you
have to push him to do it. He absolves himself for not doing more by blaming his supporters for
not pushing him more.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
FDR and LBJ had large Democratic majorities and progressive movements pushing them.
Progressives pushed Republicans more than they did Democrats in the 60s of both centuries.
In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for
and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO,
requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting.
I grew up when the big evil agency was the Republican created ICC. Then once it was gone, it
was the Republican created EPA tasked with overseeing the Republican created EIS. We have the
Republican created gun control. The Republican created 14th amendment is the latest thing to come
under attack. And the Voting Rights Act that would never have passed without Republicans.
bakho -> Peter K....
This is why 2010 was such a disaster. The OFA was nowhere to be found when it came to backing
local candidates in local elections. Obama has not done party building. This is why he gets GOP
Congress to thwart his policy. It is a profound lack of effort in the off years of 2010 and 14.
DFA stuck around after 2004 and did a lot of candidate training and party building. Which is
why we saw gains in 06 and a Dem Congress.
EMichael -> bakho...
Or it could have been an off election year that favored a GOP incensed by a black man in the
White House.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
And/or it was the lamest recovery on record as Obama appointed Bernanke and Geither in a "unity"
government strategy.
The Fed hasn't hit their inflation ceiling target for 38 consecutive months.
As soon as growth returned, Geithner and company turned to deficit reduction and austerity.
The deficit went from 10 percent to around 2.3 percent or less now. That's austerity.
Shouldn't do that until we have full employment and rising wages.
There's no evidence we'd get behind the curve on inflation or that deficit reduction helps
much with growth.
Reduce the deficit and pay down the debt once the output gap is closed and inflation is above
target.
Obama screwed the pooch on macro policy and lost Congress because of it. Yeah the deficit and
inflation are way down.
Yeah Trump is leading the Republican primary as the voters are raging.
So, why haven't progressives rallied like the Tea Party and Red State to defeat the Republicans
in Congress and the State legislatures who are killing jobs left and right in attempts to create
a depression so Republicans can argue they need to be given the White House and supermajorities
in Congress to create wealth for all?
Where are the progressives in Kansas? On buses out of the State abandoning Kansas to the old
people soon to be on Social Security and Medicare?
What about Texas? Where are the progressives in Texas? Hoping for an Obama military coup to
send all the Republicans in Texas to gitmo?
Mike Sparrow -> The Rage...
Basically this. Lets note, Trump only looks good because of the insane amount of candidates
so far. It doesn't start to get real until NH. Once the number consolidates down and corporate
money finds homes, you will get a new lineup.
I can't see the zionist wing that Huckabee/Carson represent going with Trump despite his
best attempts to look like it.
Then we have Rubio/Christie who are Bush's cousins. Once their support flows into Bush,
but will be the nominee.
The Democrats themselves, don't have any real progressives much left. Sanders is the only real
one I see and he really isn't a Democrat. Everybody is waiting for Joe Biden to crash the Clinton
party. If she can't rally support, that crashing may come sooner than thought.
Eric377 -> EMichael...
Plenty of voters might have been incensed by a black man in the White House, yet that doesn't
mean the 2010 election favored them particularly. The district lines had not been redrawn for
that election and demographic trends that augmented the supposedly non-conservative population
continued operating. I don't know what happened exactly, but Obama was no blacker in 2010 or 2014
than in 2008 or 2012.
ilsm -> bakho...
OFA was a downer in '14. 19% of US voters who are tea baggers won the US house!
Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16!
==== quote ====
It's official: When it comes to foreign policy, Barack Obama's first term is really George W.
Bush's third. Bill Kristol, son of the late neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and editor
of the Weekly Standard, declared that Obama is "a born-again neocon" during a March 30 appearance
on the Fox News Channel's Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. Kristol's remark came in the context of a discussion
of Obama's consultation with Kristol and other influential columnists prior to his March 28 address
to the nation about his military intervention in Libya. Gutfeld quizzed Kristol about the President's
asking him for "help" with his speech. Kristol denied that Obama had sought his help. Instead,
Kristol said,
In case anyone missed the significance of Kristol's comment, Gutfeld made it clear: "We've got
the drones. We've got military tribunals. We've got Gitmo. We're bombing Libya. People who voted
for Obama got four more years of Bush."
Kristol agreed, adding: "What's the joke - they told me if I voted for McCain, we'd be going
to war in a third Muslim country . I voted for McCain and we're doing it."
=== end of quote ===
In his economic policies he is a neoliberal. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/23/obamas-neoliberal-endgame/
=== quote ===
Of course, the acknowledged master of racialized triangulation is the misleader in chief, Barack
Obama whose service to elites was crucially enabled by liberals besotted by the prospect of an
African American presidency, enthusiastically projecting all manner of left identitarian fantasies
on to him-despite all evidence that he was committed to the corporate center right governance
which has been the hallmark of his administration.
Those who had warned of this materializing hoped that the TPA, provoking Obama's shameless
attacks on the Democratic labor base and sullenly dishonest smears of Elizabeth Warren, would
finally open the eyes of liberals to who they were dealing with.
No such luck. It's a safe bet that the President will have some of his waning moral authority
restored by Charleston. Demands from the black lives matter movement to "respect black leadership"
will be cynically exploited by a ruling elite which recognized from the very beginning the unique
value of cultivating multiculturally diverse spokespersons fronting for their neoliberal product
line.
The strategy was first deployed by New York City mayor David Dinkins who was able to sell his
candidacy to the establishment on the grounds that his left-liberal base, rather than rebel against
his treasonous embrace of neoliberalism, would "take it from me."
Let's hope Barack Obama's presidency will be seen as marking the zenith of this strategy.
=== end of quote ===
Second Best said...
'They [Tea Partiers} do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican.
The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent,
almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of
him.'
---
The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party.
mulp -> Second Best...
Oh, I bet a lot of Tea Party people want a third party, but only if the third party wipes away
every sign of Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, and FDR so they will be able to retire tax free on their
private Social Security and Medicare entitlements, free to enjoy their US private sector manufactured
computers, flat panel TVs, GPS, and cell phones.
Fred C. Dobbs -> e abrams...
(You won't be hearing from them, exactly.)
Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New
'Silent Majority' http://nyti.ms/1fySKYo
NYT - NICHOLAS FANDOS - JULY 11
PHOENIX - Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center
stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue
on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics - including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Macy's - while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.
Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered
so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked
through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot
campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.
"How can I be tied with this guy?" Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican
front-runner. "He's terrible. He's weak on immigration."
The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the "massive" crowds he has
drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said "weak" politicians
were afraid to address. ...
"Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its
underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity
or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why
deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because
he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental
to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever
they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment."
Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve
things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are.
Trump gives them the, "I will fix the things that you are not happy with." He trashes the opposition.
He learned it all with the WWF smack down. No other GOP pol wants to go No Holds Barred with the
Donald. But the Donald's fans would love a good trash talk session.
EMichael said...
Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people
are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace
Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote).
It is the same campaign(though up a notch) as the GOP has been running for decades, and it
was depicted accurately in "The American President" two decades ago:
" I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the
reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't
get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that
he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.
And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least
bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you
afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you
win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember
with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."
I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern
white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats.
Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow
with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for
a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which
is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense.
No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer.
I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust
with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the
Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina").
The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts.
That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content.
Don't miss Part 2 of Sean Hannity's interview with Donald Trump tonight on 'Hannity' at 10
ET!
lower middle class -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Not only will Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall with cash (or tarrifs if necessary), but
he will also take our manufacturing jobs back from them because they need us.
I wonder what the tariff will be on oil imports from Mexico?
The Rage -> lower middle class...
Mexico has little of our "manufacturing".
The Rage -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia
right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration
is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just
a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall.
Lets note Bernie Sanders has rejected visa programs for legal immigrants several times
on the cost reduction game they impose. Trump doesn't have that virtue.
The Rage said...
People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years
of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany
they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical
trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated.
The progressive is more a linage from Mills with some socialism mixed in. National Socialism
is more a linage from Carlyle, Ruskin and Morris.
Mr. Bill said...
I proclaim that Bernie Sanders has established intellectual authority. The message he brings
is music to this FDR Democrat, progressive.
Mike Sparrow -> Mr. Bill...
Does Bernie support Jim Crow like FDR? Wilson was a "progressive" as well. The modern Democratic
party didn't start until Harry Truman.....who FDR didn't want as VP.
ilsm -> Mike Sparrow...
True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned
it into a huge trough (possibly by accident).
David said...
I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and
to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would
have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on
the table.
"... Chaffetz confirmed that Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network, as well as the money he was paid by an air freight company and a cybersecurity firm with direct connections to Russia. Chaffetz added that the White House had refused to provide his committee with information and documents related to Flynn's security clearance and payments from organizations tied to the Russian and Turkish governments. The committee made six requests, and the White House cited reasons it could not comply with each of them, Cummings said. ..."
"... ... $45K? ... lol ... Therapist Bill makes multiple-times more in birthday-bribes from desert ragheads and <nudge-wink> so-called "speeches" ... then smiles into his retirement sunset villa at (((Epstein's))) Isla Lolita ... ..."
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign
income he earned from Russia and Turkey , the heads of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday.
As The Washington Post reports, committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member
Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said they believe Flynn neither received permission nor fully disclosed income
he earned for a speaking engagement in Russia and lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he
applied to reinstate his security clearance, after viewing two classified memos and Flynn's disclosure
form in a private briefing Tuesday morning.
"Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with
the law," Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.
"He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn't," Cummings said.
Chaffetz confirmed that Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak
at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network, as well as the money he was paid by an air freight
company and a cybersecurity firm with direct connections to Russia. Chaffetz added that the White
House had refused to provide his committee with information and documents related to Flynn's security
clearance and payments from organizations tied to the Russian and Turkish governments. The committee
made six requests, and the White House cited reasons it could not comply with each of them, Cummings
said.
One has to wonder about the Trump team's vetting process and perhaps more notable is that
now that Chaffetz is not running for re-election, he has nothing to fear from political fallout from
the White House or GOP in general.
... $45K? ... lol ... Therapist Bill makes multiple-times more in birthday-bribes from
desert ragheads and <nudge-wink> so-called "speeches" ... then smiles into his retirement sunset
villa at (((Epstein's))) Isla Lolita ...
... and while "Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015
gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network", the Kremlin-friendly Klinton Krime Kartel gets to pocket
more bribes while the Hilarious one, who was SoS for Obumboclot, was able to negotiate a Kremlin-reset-deal
to "give" the UraniumOne mines to the Kremlin ... and gets away with it ... go figure ...
>>> "Doesn't make one iota of difference as the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC. is
absolutely & completely....Lawless. "
... exactly, @Chupacabra ...
... and while CONgress wastes their time on piddly-little $45K, Kremlin-&-Washington-friend
Turkey (who had been allegedly one of Flynn's sources of "no-no" funds), had been supplying "moderate"
terrorists with "flour bags" full of C4 explosives ...
>>> "Syrian Army Finds Turkish 'Flour' Bags Full of C4 - Turkey has been caught before using
humanitarian pretexts to smuggle weapons into Syria"
... "... claimed that the cargo of the lorries were a 'national secret' " ... LOL!
And doubtless up next after them is Obama on 1) his using US intel to spy on opposition during
an election, and 2) the demonstrably fraudulent birth certificate he trotted out several years
back in response to Trump's barking at him.
(((Chaffetz))) was just forced out of congress for unknown reasons (probably related to corruption
or pizzagate and a brokered coverup), and there are sea sponges with a higher IQ than Cummings.
So whatever these 2 clowns say should not be taken seriously.
re "Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied
with the law," Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.
And personally I see NO evidence nor data to support the notion that the USSA Knesset has complied
with the law since - what seems like - time immemorial!
Quite the contrary in fact - especially when. in a gross abrogation of Constitutional Duty-
it comes to ' Serial Wars Of Aggression' by Presidential Edict!
ponders how many other politicians, serving or sacked, have failed to disclose payments received
from the dmedia, or apartheid regimes like Israel, or from libtard snowflake universities like
Berkeley, or ngo companies like those run by soros or russian uranium companies to the dems/clinton
etc.
does this mean there are another 435 + 100 + 1 + 7 investigations pending for those currently
(and their current aides_ serving AND another 800 investigations for ex-politicians and aides
to those politicians
DRAIN THE SWAMP has now morphed into thr need for an independent body to do the investigations
into corruption, since self policing just reverts to "neener neener" finger pointing like it's
some kind of political game.
grand jury supported by a team of current/ex-fbi sleuths?
Who fucking cares anymore, really? The whole enterprise is rigged and no one gets punished,
ever. They are just shoving it into your face that us proles are losers and they are untouchable.
Chaffetz is burned out and is leaving. Or maybe he's getting out of Dodge before revelations
of his own. In any case, his statements and assertions are becoming increasingly erratic.
Since the Flynn talk in Russia occurred in 2015, and Flynn's private lobbying work related
to Turkey was for a private company based in the Netherlands, the critical definitions here would
be the extent to which these businesses are "tied to" the Russian and Turkish governments. Nothing
comes of it.
Meanwhile Hillary, Podesta Lerner, Gollum at the IRS, Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and the rest
of the vermin run around like nothing happened. Hang the lot of them.
This case showcases the complete corruption of Capitol Hill. Flynn is getting fucked while
HRC, the Clinton Foundation and associated crooks and liars get a free ride. BURN IT DOWN! Rotten
to the core and that includes Trump.
Said it before and will say it again. The political assassination of General Flynn is a travesty.
When this is all over, he won't be charged with anything, because there is nothing to charge.
At best, anything he is accused of doing is an administrative/security issue, not criminal, and
most of the accusations--like violating the law in talking to the Russian Ambassador--are nonsense.
This is just endless hyperbole from politicians trying to smear General Flynn so they can,
by association, smear the President. If President Trump left office tomorrow, the press would
never utter the words "General Michael Flynn" again.
And when the dust settles, how does General Flynn, an American patriot, who served 34 years
in the US Army protecting this country, get his good name back? How does he get back the respect
he earned over a lifetime?
But their elections have one critical thing in common: They both came out of NOWHERE to become
president, with characteristics that previously would have throttled their chances before they delivered
their first speech in Iowa.
There's no need to recount everything from Trump's florid life and campaign that sensible people
were sure disqualified him. But we've forgotten how the sensible people at first saw Obama in much
the same way, and for reasons that went far beyond him being African American. He'd been a senator
for just two years when he started running and would have to beat the entire party establishment.
His father was Muslim. He wasn't just not named Henry Smith, his middle name was Hussein.
He'd even used cocaine, and openly admitted it.
Yet both Obama and Trump vaulted over everyone and everything into the White House. Tens of millions
of Americans were willing to place their lives in the hands of political anomalies whose central
pitch was that they would deliver profound change. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who's proven that
you can become the most popular politician in the country without owning a comb, demonstrates the
same thing.
What does this mean?
I'd say it means that something has gone incredibly wrong with this country's political
system, that large numbers of us are desperate, and are willing to hand over power to absolutely
anyone. That's brings us to the peculiar reality that it's not just Obama and Trump's elections that
had something significant in common, it's likely their presidencies.
Obama
said American healthcare was in crisis and that "plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong
to yesterday." Obama was also
outraged
by pharmaceutical companies gouging Medicare.
According to Trump , "People all across the country are devastated" by the healthcare system,
but
if we put him in charge , "Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken
care of now." Trump was also
infuriated
by Big Pharma and just like Obama vowed to crush them.
Yet Obama delivered a halfway measure that tinkered with the problem, and never went after drug
manufacturers. Trump is now poised to give America literally the same thing.
Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" in 2008. In 2016 Trump said NAFTA had caused
"devastation" and was "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed." But Obama didn't renegotiate NAFTA.
Trump
just announced he's not going to pull out of it, and it seems clear the odds of any real renegotiation
are slim.
Obama
attacked
Wall Street, and
so did Trump. Both then stocked their administrations with bankers.
And Obama and Trump both ran against the Iraq War, and both of their constituencies understood
them to mean they would rethink our entire policy toward the Middle East. Both Obama and Trump then
faithfully continued the Afghanistan War, bombed Syria, and helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen.
... ... ...
"Now that we have vanquished the Dhimmicrats and cuckservatives," Steve Bannon proclaimed, "we
shall -" and then tripped on his shoelaces and fell down 97 flights of stairs.
"... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised
Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.
And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what
happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?
I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including
the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?
When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.
We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds,
incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.
If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard
for the future.
Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.
Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries)
http://www.youtube.com/user ...
Prescott
Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist
Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...
"... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine
free speech. ..."
"... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain
since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological
Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend
and foe alike. ..."
"... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the
CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but
for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their
own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
"... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them.
..."
"... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down
world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss
of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism
and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to
"predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing
local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it
appears to be a native development." ..."
"... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also
took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized
the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and
so on.' ..."
"... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged
the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
"... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its
covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging
Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
"... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD
served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According
to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ,"
"the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output
(i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists
who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well
as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties
in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means,
and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
"... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out
stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy.
Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own
intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others
that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
"... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International
experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet
Union. ..."
"... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan,
it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without
anyone being the wiser. ..."
"... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What
Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic
society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is
of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force
and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never
without fraud." ..."
Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig
called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon
takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read
Part 1 ,
Part 2 and
Part 3 .
The recent
assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false
narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan
Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war
launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep
roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before
deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.
Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy
at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the "
Countering Disinformation
and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December
2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only
to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred
to as " the Global Engagement
Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize,
understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The
real purpose of
this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges
Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or
jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's
firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for
a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.
This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back
to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots
are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from
Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of
the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's "
The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun
with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.
In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's
Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy
of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was
only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion,
terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back
wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and,
when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.
The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for
genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto"
employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free
at all, but a concoction of the CIA's
Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare
program waged on friend and foe alike.
The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying
the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals,
but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans
from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know
it.
"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal
with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the
cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists
or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing
their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility
within the various intellectual professions."
Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was
the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in
the document
PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement,
to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion,
doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual
appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the
West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the
planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American
origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal
critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2
itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system"
that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields
of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology
and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded:
"That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."
Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall
also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which
emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel,
Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in
his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when
PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully
to hand."
Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a
fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy.
With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old
Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.
The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere.
Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the
emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.
Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research
Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.
Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the
IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977.
According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of "
Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole
aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies
and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies
and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available
channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which
might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit
the British Left."
IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right
wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and
distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered
story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established
with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte
Brian Rossiter
Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political
analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years
as one of Britain's top
propagandists and secret agents .
If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment
alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look
no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told
outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan
in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't
need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream
believer, a dangerous imperialist who
acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until
his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé
Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco
and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize
governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to
delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.
The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put
out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist
spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in
his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book
above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think
about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction
between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which
was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled
at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the
use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used
by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as
valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in
1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method.
Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or
the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more
of less absolute."
But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his
Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage
for rolling back the Soviet Union.
In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented
a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International
(6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of
the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be
caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen
"because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist
one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals.
In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "
Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired
as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam
in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the
Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.
As George Orwell wrote
in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned
to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed
and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical,
and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can
sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."
Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain
his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine
Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to
one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say
in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all
ye who enter here.
This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see
The new term is ZOC -- "AngloZionists occupied country."
Notable quotes:
"... Why did we invade Iraq ..."
"... For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence ..."
"... They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking ..."
"... We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. ..."
"... all of whom would go into the Bush administration ..."
"... It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel. ..."
"... It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.) ..."
"... of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv ..."
"... Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake. ..."
"... But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. ..."
"... This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. ..."
The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good
people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace
of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public,
Why did we invade Iraq ?
Last night Chris Matthews
asked that question
again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect
Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange:
Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul]
Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning,
when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before
there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it.
It seemed like WMD was a cover story.
Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other
members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and
there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and
they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda
didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence
Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent
pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called,
Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us
to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want
to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement
with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in
there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war
on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian
campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that
thinking . we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take
us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus
and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.
What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very
issue in the New York Times. ("
Errors and Lies ," which poses the same question that Matthews does but
concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading
as a tautology.)
Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel
ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over
the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able
to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum
but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into
democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel
as a great neighbor. It's a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel
ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept
a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people
to share in Israel's modern economic miracle.
The evidence for this causation is at every hand.
It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser -
all of whom would go into the Bush administration - calling for the
removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem
to Jordan.
It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton
in 1998
telling him that Saddam's WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely
regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later
accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)
It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early
in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from
power" for the sake of Israel.
the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets
of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted
in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of
liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny,
intolerance, and hatred.
It is in Netanyahu testifying
to Congress in 2002 t hat he promised there would be "enormous positive
reverberations" throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.
It is in Wolfowitz
saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly
the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including
Douglas Feith.)
It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum's An End to Evil, to
Kristol and Kaplan's The War Over Saddam, to Berman's Terror and Liberalism,
saying that Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for
the U.S. to topple him.
It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman
saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel
Aviv - and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn't get away
with that.
It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former
Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back
in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll
tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990
– it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University
of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. "And this is the threat that dare not speak
its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will
tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard
on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."
It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war
the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September
11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war
that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I
could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within
a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert
island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration
was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner
thought favorable to Israel.
And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to
Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because
they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat
to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio's
leading supporter,
who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to
"sustain" Israel.
An
Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism
you won't understand the Iraq war:
Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a
conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli
government. But it's entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses
as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli
sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and
to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion.
In fact any analysis of the war's causes that didn't take these into account
would be deficient.
Many writers, including
Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and
Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of
the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs
to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives,
for our own sake.
But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed
rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war.
This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war
on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides
rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't
make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play
out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.
The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a
consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony.
When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging
the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new
set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator
who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's
defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.
At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official
Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary
of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New
American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim
of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the
naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It
is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would
shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.
Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul
David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein
would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida
and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.
Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose
loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly
in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S.
and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades
in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the
U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly
that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon,"
bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no
retort. Russian jets
destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But,
the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in
order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change"
policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling
class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the
corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown,
blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under
the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country
where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist
network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: "
The U.S., Not
Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")
After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives
that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about "
fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset,
he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well
and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything
seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."
Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire,
and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the
subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for
his first public speech since leaving the
White House.
"It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University
of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts.
The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations,
and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to
confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."
Obama continued:
"If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall
Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're
just looking at cat videos [laughter].
"So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news
and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of
creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different
news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so
you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's
become more polarized."
Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used
to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and
the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared
by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").
However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity
of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers
also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers
"back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to
read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that
were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate
news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of
facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism"
and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition
to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.
Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's
emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's
going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.
"But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information,
or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation,
and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated,"
Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase
myself."
What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that
"the community will feel more welcome."
If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives
on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All
of it lies.
Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].
"Despite the president having expansive executive authority to set
procurement policy and past presidents using that authority to deliver on their
policy commitments and goals, the Trump administration has failed to exclude
offshoring firms from qualifying for billions of dollars in federal contracts" [
Public
Citizen
(PDF)].
"... Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition to a new era of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. However, part of it may reflect the triumph of neocon thinking within the US. ..."
"... Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these. ..."
"... Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism. ..."
"... Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis ..."
"... Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm. ..."
I think this is a pretty good summary of Trump "bait and switch" maneuver,
which makes him "Republican version of Obama".
...A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade
of being pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization. However,
his true economic interest is the exact opposite.
...As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will engage
in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be worse than the bite
because neoliberal globalization has increased corporate profits, in line
with his economic interests.
...His neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration.
Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the current US polity.
...The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the progressive
critique of the neoliberal economy. For four decades, the US economy has
short-changed working class voters via wage stagnation and manufacturing
job loss.
...In this regard, his capture of the globalization and deindustrialization
debate is particularly important. That is because globalization and deindustrialization
are the most public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact
on wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible.
...That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative about
neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and immigrants". The Trump
narrative is that the US is a victim.
...Bait and switch: anti-globalization bait, neoliberal switch...The
bait was his critique of the economic establishment and globalization and
the harm they have done to working class voters.
...Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump could initially
get away with this pro-worker masquerade. However, the realities of Trump's
economic policies have now become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends
to worsen the neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation
and income inequality by increasing the power of business and finance, and
by intimidating workers and weakening unions.
...As for economics, Trump's own economic interests have him identifying
with corporations and capital. Globalization has been "made in the USA"
for the benefit of large American multi-national corporations which have
been big winners from the process. Consequently, Trump is inclined to preserve
the system, though he is willing to make changes if that increases corporate
profitability.
The implication is one can expect lots of anti-globalization circus to
address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock the globalization
boat unless something more profitable is possible.
...Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition
to a new era of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this
new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his
base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. However, part of it
may reflect the triumph of neocon thinking within the US.
...Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right
to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the
right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments
– including ringing Russia with these.
...The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for the Iraq
war and acceptance of the war on terror as justification for intervention
anywhere. It is also evident in President Obama's continued investment in
global military base expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central
Europe and the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution
in Ukraine.
Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention
with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting
democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has
a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it
reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism.
The neocon project was originally concerned with military supremacy and
targeted Russia. However, it is about US power in general, which means it
potentially implicates every country and every dimension of international
policy.
Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international
economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels
increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically
consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged
on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits with the narrative constructed
by Trump that "foreigners and immigrants" are responsible for US economic
malaise.
...Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political
aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity
which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal
and unilateralism is a new norm.
In other words, Democratic pundits who claimed that Trump is a neo-fascist
were right, without any understanding the that Dems were major enablers
of this political platform in the USA for a long time and Clinton wing
is essentially identical to neocons as for foreign policy platform (but
without Trump anti-globalization and isolationism smoke screen).
So we can say that Democrats essentially got their wish: they got
Hillary elected if we limit ourselves to just foreign policy issues.
Because the only gap between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy issues
is a sex change operation on one of them. After that everything is identical.
Key appointees of Trump administration (General McMaster and General
Mattis) are close friends of Paul Wolfowitz -- the architect of the
Iraq war. You can't be more neocon that Wolfowitz.
The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for
the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican
candidates' embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent
question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq? Last night
Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was
about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve
kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange: Matthews: Why were the
people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking
about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the
white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It
seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it. It seemed like
WMD was a cover story. Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz
and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid
of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would
help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy
theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all
the acts of violence Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's
a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways,
neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd
of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group
of people that don't want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't
want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight
that war. They're willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent
impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending
campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive,
that's why I have a problem with that thinking. we've got to get to
the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that's the same
reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have
permanent war with Iran. What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul
Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. ("Errors
and Lies," which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes
that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading
as a tautology.)
With such friends like Paul Wolfowitz Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster belong to Hillary team. And Trump are strongly advised to perform sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report: ..."
"... If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013 ..."
"... Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience. ..."
"... If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? ..."
President Trump has yet to provide any credible evidence that the gas attack in Syria earlier
this month was carried out by Assad, and in the meantime very serious questions about the veracity
of White House claims are arising from very credible experts. Yet the Administration seems ever more
determined now that it has done a 180 degree turn and demanded regime change for Syria. Late last
week the White House announced sanctions on 271 Syrian scientists who Trump claims are working on
chemical weapons. The proof? None.
How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be
telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz,
is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Virtually all those in USGov leadership roles are not interested in peace; MIC makes for favors
to dispense & $contributions for re-election. But wars can't be waged if few are willing to join
military & work for Dept of Defense (what a truth-twisted name!). Depopularize both military participation
& "support the troops" mania.
Take a day off from sanity and watch TV all day. The advertising for just about every commercial
product is being taken over by militarism. Toys, breakfast cereals, restaurants, cars, beer commercials,
good thing we don't have tobacco commercials anymore, or we'll have a campaign like Lucky Strike
GREEN is going to War! (the tobacco company changed the color on the packets because the red dye
had a lot of chromium in it and chromium was needed for aircraft parts) Rice Krispies cereal was
touted as "Shot from Guns!" (Let's get the kids involved!) That last one was courtesy of my Mom
and her sisters, they were kids at the time. The Recruiters are getting worse.
If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the
situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.
I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled
and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump
to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd
at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were
mistaken.
I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official
narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt
that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack.
It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make.
The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post
a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack
in Khan Sheikhoun.
Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under
one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that
former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience.
The truth about the gas attack might take some time to wiggle to the surface, especially if
claims made by the administration turn out bankrupt. They will likely bury it as long as possible.
The media will likely be reticent to dig, having all thrown roses at Trump's feet for a little
"shock and awe". Never underestimate either the willful ignorance or the ignominious glorification
(by the media) of reckless bombing under the guise of humanitarian concerns. It seems they learned
not a damned thing from the debacle of Iraq. They have simply gone back to sleep since then.
Paul talks about "sensibility and a better policy". It seems he was yet another "believer"
who was duped by a man who tells lies faster than his lips can move. They had about 16 months
to watch Trump put truth in a dumpster fire, and yet they STILL believed that his election would
herald some utopian, isolationist, wet-dream fantasy-land where the MIC would fold up overnight
and bring all the boys back home. How's that working out for the "believers"? Trust a man with
no core at your own peril. The messiah complex (as a projection) really needs to die in this country...before
we do some REAL damage to ourselves.
Nice post. In defense of Paul, I never saw any statement of his that he was a supporter of
Trump. He did say he liked SOME of the things he was saying on the campaign trail (like bring
the troops home). Also, it didn't take him long to publicly criticize Trump. Contrast these critical/skeptical
statements to those of other public figures. I suspect Paul's attacks on Trump will accelerate
(they already have).
Also, Paul did cite "red flags" about Trump during the campaign. I saw him on one interview
criticize the proclivity of Trump to propose executive actions that seemed imperial in nature,
certainly outside of the confines of a president's Constitutional role.
Ron Paul's voice and views are more important than mine as they get heard and read by far more
people. Thank goodness he is still around to offer his contrarian views.
I'm sure Trump already doesn't like Ron Paul, and that Trump's antagonism for Paul will only
grow as events transpire.
For all those deluded conspiracy theorists out there -- The mainstream news almost without exception
supports accusations that Syria uses Sarin gas and that Assad kills his own citizens --
They all agree that the 'moderate' opposition, 'free speech' community service activists, with
only peaceful intentions, as they are deserve both our support and protection - but I am beginning
to wonder who it is doing the fighting ? Oh, sorry -- Assad -- Sorry for my foolish mistake !
If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic
Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the
Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? Just
pass the hymn-sheet around -- Please feel welcome to join in the singing --
"... A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade of being pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization. ..."
"... As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will engage in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be worse than the bite because neoliberal globalization has increased corporate profits, in line with his economic interests. ..."
"... His neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the current US polity. ..."
"... Trump's political success was based on a two-sided attack on the establishment. ..."
"... he captured the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy, especially the critique of globalization. ..."
"... The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy. For four decades, the US economy has short-changed working class voters via wage stagnation and manufacturing job loss. ..."
"... In this regard, his capture of the globalization and deindustrialization debate is particularly important. That is because globalization and deindustrialization are the most public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact on wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible. ..."
"... Establishment Democrats handed Trump the opening to capture the globalization debate by pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) despite widespread voter opposition. ..."
"... That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative about neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and immigrants". The Trump narrative is that the US is a victim. ..."
"... The reality is globalization has been "Made in the USA" by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, working in tandem with Congress and successive administrations. ..."
"... Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump could initially get away with this pro-worker masquerade. However, the realities of Trump's economic policies have now become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends to worsen the neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation and income inequality by increasing the power of business and finance, and by intimidating workers and weakening unions. ..."
"... Globalization has been "made in the USA" for the benefit of large American multi-national corporations which have been big winners from the process. ..."
"... one can expect lots of anti-globalization circus to address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock the globalization boat unless something more profitable is possible. ..."
"... this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. ..."
"... Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these. ..."
"... The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for the Iraq war and acceptance of the war on terror as justification for intervention anywhere. It is also evident in President Obama's continued investment in global military base expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central Europe and the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine. ..."
"... Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism. ..."
"... Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits with the narrative constructed by Trump that "foreigners and immigrants" are responsible for US economic malaise. ..."
"... Trump has surfaced such thinking because it plays well with his nationalist domestic political strategy, but proclivity for such thinking was already in place within the establishment. ..."
"... Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm. ..."
A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade of being
pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization.
However, his true economic interest is the exact opposite. That creates conflict
between Trump's political and economic interests. Understanding the calculus of
that conflict is critical for understanding and predicting Trump's economic
policy, especially his international economic policy.
As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will
engage in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be
worse than the bite because neoliberal globalization has
increased corporate profits, in line with his economic
interests. He will also feed his political base's racist
immigration policy as long as that does not adversely impact
corporate profitability.
Lastly, Trump expresses neocon unilateralist tendencies
that play well with much of the US electorate. His neocon
unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration.
Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the
current US polity. That has profound implications for the
international relations order, and is something many Western
European governments may not yet have digested.
How Trump succeeded
Trump's political success was based on a two-sided attack on the
establishment.
First, he ratcheted up the existing Republican "illiberal" cultural values
agenda into full-blown racist authoritarian nationalism. Second, he captured
the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy, especially the critique of
globalization.
Trump's ratcheting-up of the illiberal cultural values agenda
enabled him to displace the Republican establishment. His
extremism jumped him to the front of the Republican queue, which
was critical in the primary process as that process engages the
most extreme voters. However, his racist nationalism also has
broader political appeal because racism reaches far beyond the
Republican base, while nationalism has bi-partisan establishment
support.
The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the
progressive critique of the neoliberal economy. For four
decades, the US economy has short-changed working class voters
via wage stagnation and manufacturing job loss. That has created
discontent and disappointed expectations. Trump exploited that
discontent and disappointment by masquerading as a critic of the
neoliberal economy and promising to make the economy work for
working class Americans.
In this regard, his capture of the globalization and
deindustrialization debate is particularly important. That is
because globalization and deindustrialization are the most
public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact on
wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible. By gaining
credible ownership of the globalization critique (via his
criticisms of off-shoring, China, and trade deals like NAFTA and TPP), Trump gained credibility for his claim to be on the side
of working families.
Establishment Democrats handed Trump the opening to capture
the globalization debate by pushing the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) despite widespread voter opposition. For this,
President Obama deserves special blame.
That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative
about neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and
immigrants". The Trump narrative is that the US is a victim. The
US has supposedly negotiated weak trade agreements and
foreigners have cheated on those agreements. Simultaneously,
illegal immigrants have flooded in and taken US jobs and driven
down wages. The reality is globalization has been "Made in the
USA" by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, working
in tandem with Congress and successive administrations.
Trump's new 'blame it on "foreigners and immigrants"'
narrative of globalization complements and feeds his racist
nationalist cultural values agenda. With foreigners and
immigrants supposedly to blame for the economic difficulties of
US workers, that provides the rationale for his xenophobic
policies.
In sum, Trump succeeded by outflanking the Republican
establishment with his racist nationalist values agenda, and
outflanking the Democratic establishment with his
anti-globalization economic rhetoric. These two political
manoeuvres constituted a coherent political strategy that
enabled Trump to connect with reactionary voters while
masquerading as being on workers' side.
Bait and switch: anti-globalization bait, neoliberal
switch
Trump's representation as being on the side of workers stands
in complete contradiction to his own interests as a billionaire
businessman whose metric of success is money and wealth, and who
is devoid of charitable inclination or notions of public
service. The reality is he is engaged in a skillful "bait and
switch" befitting a con artist.
The bait was his critique of the economic establishment and
globalization and the harm they have done to working class
voters. The switch is rather than reforming the neoliberal
economy, Trump substitutes racism, nationalism, and
authoritarianism, while simultaneously doubling-down on
neoliberal economic policy.
Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump
could initially get away with this pro-worker masquerade.
However, the realities of Trump's economic policies have now
become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends to worsen the
neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation and
income inequality by increasing the power of business and
finance, and by intimidating workers and weakening unions.
Trump's economic policy team is dominated by ex-Goldman Sachs
personnel, who include Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin and
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Trump's Chief
Strategist, Stephen Bannon, is also a Goldman Sachs alumnus.
Trump's tax policy aims to cut the tax rate on corporations
and wealthy individuals; his budget expenditure policy aims to
slash social welfare spending and provision of public services
to lower and middle class families; and all forms of regulation
– consumer, labor market, business, financial, and environmental
– are under profound attack.
The one area where the masquerade continues is international
economic policy. That is because Trump is compelled to balance
political needs and economic interests. As for politics, Trump
needs to present himself as remedying globalization's negative
effects. Among working families, globalization is the most
visible and economically understood issue, and Trump's critique
of globalization is front and center of his pro-worker
masquerade. That makes it politically essential he preserve his
image as critic of globalization.
As for economics, Trump's own economic interests have him identifying with
corporations and capital.
Globalization has been "made in the USA" for the benefit of large American
multi-national corporations which have been big winners from the process.
Consequently, Trump is inclined to preserve the system, though he is willing to
make changes if that increases corporate profitability.
The implication is one can expect lots of anti-globalization
circus to address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock
the globalization boat unless something more profitable is
possible.
Trump's international relations unilateralism: the neocon
factor
Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition to a new era
of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this new
unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that
he is nationalist and anti-globalization.
However, part of it may reflect the
triumph of neocon thinking within the US.
The neocon project derives from the belief that never
again should there be a power, like the former Soviet Union,
capable of rivalling the US. Originally, the neocon project
represented extreme Republican thinking, but it has become
mainstream thinking.
Both Republicans and Democrats now believe
the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any
time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with
military bases and military personnel deployments – including
ringing Russia with these.
The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for
the Iraq war and acceptance of the war on terror as
justification for intervention anywhere. It is also evident in
President Obama's continued investment in global military base
expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central Europe and
the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution in
Ukraine.
Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale
for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to
intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right
derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special
mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it
reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism.
The neocon project was originally concerned with military
supremacy and targeted Russia. However, it is about US power in
general, which means it potentially implicates every country and
every dimension of international policy.
Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into
international economic relations. As the sole global
super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained
in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically
consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has
been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits
with the narrative constructed by Trump that "foreigners and
immigrants" are responsible for US economic malaise.
The importance of the neocon factor is it dramatically
changes the interpretation of Trump's unilateralist
international economic policy chatter. Instead of just being
Trump bluster, such chatter is consistent with the neocon
construction of international relations. That construction
provides the over-arching frame for US foreign policy, and
international economic policy must therefore conform with it.
That explains why Trump's NATO strictures have raised so few
ripples within Washington, and why the Washington establishment
has been so quick to engage the border adjusted tax (BAT)
proposal despite its unilateralist character and inconsistency
with the WTO. Trump has surfaced such thinking because it plays
well with his nationalist domestic political strategy, but
proclivity for such thinking was already in place within the
establishment.
The implication is Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a
one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects
enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a
neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and
unilateralism is a new norm.
That has bigger ramifications for the international relations order that foreign
governments, including Western European governments, will need to digest.
Thomas Palley is an independent economist living in
Washington DC. He founded Economics for Democratic & Open
Societies. The goal of the project is to stimulate public
discussion about what kinds of economic arrangements and
conditions are needed to promote democracy and open society. His
numerous op-eds are posted on his website http://www.thomaspalley.com.
"... is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). His debut novel, ZONE 23, will be published in April by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com , or at consentfactory.org . ..."
"... Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon. ..."
"... One massive disadvantage to fascism is political tone-deafness. Our political leaders are too busy buying constituencies with symbolic victories, subsidies, selective military interventions, and tax preferences that they don't notice underlying wobbliness. By wobbliness, I mean debt of all sorts that's sold to foreign entities, ..."
"... Huuge building owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner – who is said to be running USA White House now for the Deep State, Kosher Nostra etc – had FIVE (!) 'mysterious' fires that WERE under NY Fire Dept arson investigation ..."
"... Well, folks, I think it's about time we all get over Trump and recognize the system for the fetid cesspool it has always been. ..."
"... Trump's an emotional idiot who speaks before thinking, but at least he's brutally honest and trying do what he promised he would do as president doing his campaign run. ..."
"... If Hillary, Bernie or anyone else had won we'd be fighting either WWIII with Russia over a desert landscape or we'd be suffering from yet another abysmal phyric victory in the middle east. ..."
"... Voted for America first, got Israel first.Sad. ..."
"... You voted, but others paid. You support from afar, but Trump is surrounded up-close by the GLOB. ..."
"... Here's what the Trump Supporters can do. Organize something like a Tea Party rally. Protest Trump Treason. ..."
"... Was it a con all along? It is hard for me to believe this. ..."
"... These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win a presidential election? ..."
"... There are a lot of well-meaning Americans who will go to their early graves thinking they still have the luxury of lying about the real nature of the problem: "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power". ..."
"... My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that all the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. ..."
"... While I loathe both him and the system, at least he made mincemeat of Hillary and the other clowns, and is now in the process of tearing down the curtain so that even the most faithful should get a glimpse and whiff of the piles of reeking compost behind it. ..."
"... Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where the bankers feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order to dupe the electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too much during the Presidential election this last time around too? ..."
"... Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's what I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war chord, being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel. It's just talking out of both sides of your mouth. ..."
"... But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now – no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom. ..."
So the President formerly known as Hitler has apparently pulled his head out
of his ass and gotten with the global capitalist program. The ruling classes
couldn't be more relieved, as it was beginning to look like they were going
to have to carry on with their totally ridiculous "Manchurian President" propaganda
indefinitely, or deal with Trump in some harsher way, which, given the paranoid
mood in the country and the heavily-armed nature of a lot of his supporters,
was going to get a little tricky.
Luckily, however, H. R. McMaster, James Mattis, and the rest of the permanent
members of the global capitalist war machine (better known as the United States
military), as well as his bleeding heart daughter, Ivanka, were able to talk
some sense into Trump, and convince him to employ about sixty cruise missiles
to pointlessly obliterate a Syrian airstrip, and then drop a $314 million Massive
Ordnance Air Blast bomb on a few dozen "terrorists" in some caves in Afghanistan.
The fact that these air strikes had virtually zero military value was beside
the point. The global capitalist ruling classes needed Trump to demonstrate
that he is ready and willing to continue the wholesale restructuring of the
Middle East that they've been carrying out since the end of the Cold War, and
bomb whatever they tell him to bomb, and, basically, do what the fuck he's told
when it comes to geopolitical matters. Trump, who was probably tired of losing,
and being referred to as Bannon's puppet, and being accused of treason, and
so on, and who never really gave two shits about the suckers he conned into
voting for him anyway, had one of those Road to Damascus experiences and gave
the Pentagon boys carte blanche.
The display of overwhelming force that followed, at 08:40 EST, April 6,
2017, signaled the start of the Trumpian reign. CNN talking head
Fareed Zakaria put it this way the following evening, "I think Donald Trump
became president of the United States last night for the first time really
as president, he talked about international norms, international rules, about
America's role in enforcing justice in the world."
This was approximately 24 hours after CNN and the other totally objective
members of the mainstream media had had a chance to calm down a little, and
to clean up after the orgy of obsequious cheerleading they had indulged in the
previous evening. For most of the spastic talking heads who are paid to repeat
whatever some producer whispers into their earpieces around the clock while
making weird faces, the footage of those turgid Tomahawk missiles rising angrily
out of their silos on their way to violently penetrate the enemy and explode
in shuddering spasms of global corporatist power was literally orgasmic.
Pent-up editorialists instantly pumped out geysers of overwhelming approval
. MSNBC's Brian Williams lost it and started raving on camera about
"the beauty of our fearsome armaments," and quoting Leonard Cohen, and so
on. The Washington Post immediately brought in Robert Kagan to froth
at the mouth about
"rebalancing Syria in America's favor." And it wasn't just the US press
and the corporate-owned US political establishment. The rest of the global capitalist
empire (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the European Council, Spain, Italy,
Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al.) were quick to cheer Trump's transformation
into a grown-up, moderate, more or less rational, or at least obedient, globalist
puppet.
Now, I owe Trump an apology at this point, because his sudden conversion
to the Globalist faith proves that he is not the total ass hat I've accused
him of being for twenty five years, or at least that he is not suicidal. Prior
to his soul-searching talk with Ivanka, and his chat with the generals, and
to viewing the photos of those "beautiful babies" gassed by Assad in a last-ditch
attempt to force the USA to invade his country and hang him to death, he (i.e.,
Trump, not Assad) was on the verge of a massive heart attack, or a stroke, or
other medical event, or just accidentally getting shot in the head by some mentally
unstable, three-named gunman. Or maybe The New York Times ' guest loony,
the increasingly Strangelovian Louise Mensch , was going to uncover a grainy
VHS tape of Trump and Putin in their BDSM-wear signing a pact to destroy America
in the urine of a Muscovite prostitute or whatever.
The point is, Trump was playing with fire, having misunderstood his job
description. For a while there it seemed he actually believed he was going to
defy the will of all those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and, no,
I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment
and the armies they employ to keep them in power). This, of course, was never
going to happen. The global capitalist ruling classes can put up with a lot
from a US president (who is the most powerful man in the world, after all),
but there are a few lines one does not cross, and some fundamental responsibilities
they need to know are going to get handled. Playing neo-nationalist grab-ass
(or selling the world some Hope and Change crap) is all fine and good when you
are out on the hustings, but
as Obama noted on his way out of town , "reality has a way of asserting
itself." Or,
as corporatist puppet Chuck Schumer put it ,"you take on the intelligence
community - they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." I don't
mean to be overly dramatic, but we're talking about the US military, CIA, NSA,
and the rest of the military industrial complex. These are people who have no
problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their
kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling
billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened
to win a presidential election?
In any event, the danger has passed. Trump, having assumed the mantle of
Commander in Chief of Global Capitalism's worldwide arbitrary killing machine
(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't go nuts
and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform the planet
into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison), can relax and focus on
improving his golf swing. Whatever mess he makes of the country (i.e., the United
States of America, the nominally sovereign nation state that most Americans
believe they live in) will be tolerated by the global capitalist establishment,
as they couldn't care less about actual Americans, or Brits, or Greeks, or Syrians,
or whoever. We're all just a bunch of canon fodder, and servants, and deplorables,
and losers, to them.
If it's any consolation, at least we'll be able to get back to "normality,"
finally. Yes, it will likely take a few weeks for liberals to fully recover
from the shock of the cancellation of Holocaust Redux and the Imminent Invasion
of the Putin-Nazis, but my prediction is, by sometime this Summer, we'll have
returned to more or less business as usual. That is, of course, unless Putin
the Evil hacks the upcoming French elections in which case, you know, End
of Democracy, and Holocaust II, et cetera, again. Stay tuned to the corporate
media for moment-by-moment updates on that.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based
in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway
Play Publishing (US). His debut novel, ZONE 23, will be published in April by
Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com , or at
consentfactory.org
.
100 Words If it's any consolation, at least we'll be able to get
back to "normality," finally. Yes, it will likely take a few weeks for liberals
to fully recover from the shock of the cancellation of Holocaust Redux and
the Imminent Invasion of the Putin-Nazis, but my prediction is, by sometime
this Summer, we'll have returned to more or less business as usual. That
is, of course, unless Putin the Evil hacks the upcoming French elections
in which case, you know, End of Democracy, and Holocaust II, et cetera,
again. Stay tuned to the corporate media for moment-by-moment updates on
that.
Thanks for this paragraph. None of this ends without USG bankruptcy.
Romania has announced their intent to enhance their defensive capability
by procuring Patriot, a Raytheon spokesperson said . Poland expects to sign
a $7.6 billion deal with Raytheon to buy eight Patriot missile defense systems
by the end of this year.
I am uttering the lefty's lament: "Why didn't I buy Raytheon shares!"
Chuck Schumer came up with a good theory over the bullet for the Warren
commission.
In the political satire film Death Race 2000 (1975), America's greatest
reality television celebrity "Frankenstein", played by David Carradine is
winner of a game where innocent people are killed, becomes US president
and abolishes the game. Then he runs over and kills a carping TY reporter.
See, once you are pres, you have the power to do anything at all. Sack
anyone who complains , put your men in key positions, and (perhaps worst
of all) audit the income tax returns of anyone outside the government who
dares raise their head.
Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling
billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because
he happened to win presidential election?
Featured authors that I have I have read here today babble far more in
their presumably considered posts than Trump does while speaking of the
cuff, and to far less effec.t
In a 140-character world, brevity is digital wit. Hence the attractiveness
of the enthymeme, a type of syllogism in which the speaker intentionally
withholds the premises or conclusion of an argument. The enthymeme works
because of succinctness, simplicity, and the active participation of
the audience, who has to supply the missing information. Aristotle noted
its powerful popular appeal in democratic Athens.
Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the
ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national
traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl
that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump
once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support
him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and
expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.
C. J., thanks. During the campaign I published a short
essay locally that was mildly favorable to candidate Trump. I suggested
Trump's rascally, unscripted rhetoric, his eminent outsiderness, and his
personal wealth would buy him enough political space to make good changes
in the Wall Street/K Street condominium that governs us. Two avid Trump
supporters I know disliked my piece, I suppose for my inadequate enthusiasm.
(I preferred Trump to Hillary, and voted Libertarian out of habit.)
We got surgeon Tom Price, a water carrier for the American Medical Association,
as Health and Human Services Secretary. There's a handful of the usual investment
banker types in the administration, plus, of course, this most recent gratuitous
and illegal bombing of Syria. Pretty much all suggest to me Trump's squandered
whatever advantages he may have had as a candidate, and he'll settle in
to being broker-in-chief of our council of fasces .
One massive disadvantage to fascism is political tone-deafness. Our
political leaders are too busy buying constituencies with symbolic victories,
subsidies, selective military interventions, and tax preferences that they
don't notice underlying wobbliness. By wobbliness, I mean debt of all sorts
that's sold to foreign entities,
White Death that's much talked about here, the effective subversion of
schools, churches, and the family, etc . We end up with crisis-style
decision-making as long ignored and long festering issues can no longer
be ignored.
Huuge building owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner – who is
said to be running USA White House now for the Deep State, Kosher Nostra
etc – had FIVE (!) 'mysterious' fires that WERE under NY Fire Dept arson
investigation (squashed?) young Kushner perhaps in the mould of his
father Charles (imprisoned for mafia-type crimes, ironically prosecuted
by Trump supporter Chris Christie)
Young Chabad-Mossad-Israeli-army-tied Jared Kushner overseeing Trump's
White House, has profited 'bigly' by driving out elderly & low-income tenants
who pay 'rent-controlled' low monthly rental amounts Suspicious fires
in buildings owned by Jewish landlords are sometimes 'anti-Semitically'
called 'Jewish lightning'
Mysterious Fires Plague Williamsburg [Brooklyn NY] Condo Building
Owned By Trump's Son-In-Law
Residents of a high-priced apartment building are gripped with paranoia
following a series of mysterious fires The block-long rental building,
184 Kent Avenue, is a century-old warehouse that Jared Kushner, a real
estate developer & Donald Trump's son-in-law, bought for $275 million
& started converting to condos last April
One resident who moved into the building 2 years ago &, like most
tenants we spoke to, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution,
said that after Kushner & friend bought the building, many tenants had
their rent increased by $400 or $500
The building has six open Buildings Department violations Then
there are the fires
The first flared just before noon on May 27th Then, 3 weeks later
to the day, basically the same thing happened The third fire was reported
on June 20th The fourth occurred on June 29th A fifth small fire
occurred midday the following day, June 30th
Following the last fire, the rumour mill kicked into hyper-drive,
in part because of still-limited communication from management, & the
feeling among some remaining tenants that the scary conflagrations could
be a tactic by Kushner & company to drive them to abandon their protected
leases
Ongoing FDNY investigation makes it "inappropriate to comment further
on the cause of the recent fires."
Fires aside, Kushner, son of real estate magnate Charles Kushner,
has aggressively expanded Kushner Companies' footprint in New York City
over several years, & has drawn accusations of tenant harassment. Kushner
bought dozens of buildings in Manhattan & Brooklyn Forty of them came
mostly emptied of rent-stabilised tenants tenants left or suffered
for reasons including dust from construction, a manager who changed
a front-door lock during Hurricane Sandy, chronic leaks, & ceiling collapses
One building after Kushner took over, tenants reporting leaks, ceiling
collapses, an electrical fire, & nearly five months without gas under
Kushner management.
Well, folks, I think it's about time we all get over Trump and recognize
the system for the fetid cesspool it has always been.
While I loathe both him and the system, at least he made mincemeat of
Hillary and the other clowns, and is now in the process of tearing down
the curtain so that even the most faithful should get a glimpse and whiff
of the piles of reeking compost behind it.
" and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the
global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them
in power "
Thanks for clearing that up, for us. And thanks for not using the word
"ass" or "asshat" as many times as you did in your last submission. Three
or four times an article is plenty.
October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. "The US
is Threatening Every Country on Planet Earth" by Michel Chossudovsky
The military alliance claims that the measure is a response to a Russia's
military build-up and increased activity around NATO's borders. The Russian
president, however, has denounced NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe. President
Putin has blamed the military alliance for global instability. NATO's latest
venture to encircle Russia its repercussions, in this edition of the Debate.
"and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global
capitalist establishment"
Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.
"(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't
go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform
the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"
Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the
ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator,
national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an
elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off
a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1%
of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare
war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations
soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNl10qb1IVM Dec 7, 2016 Trump Fills the
Swamp With Steven Mnuchin
Trump has named Steven Mnuchin as his Treasury Secretary. So who is Mnuchin,
and what does his background tell us about his ideology and what kind of
administration Trump is assembling?
@Intelligent Dasein Bring in Patraeus? You either need to make your
sarc more explicit or get your head examined. Petraeus was skewered by the
Neocons when, back in Afghanistan, he said that our support for Israel caused
us much harm in the Muslim world. He was then 'caught' in a tryst with his
female 'biographer' which ruined his chances of higher office at that time,
to the glee of the Neocohens, so shut the f up!
100 Words
@naro Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
"
Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The cost
of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance of the writer
is staggering.
Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb "
Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The
cost of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance
of the writer is staggering.
The program costs $314 million. How often has this bomb been used? Rhetorical
question. If a hitman is paid $100k for an operation to assassinate one
(or several persons), is the overall cost of that hit the cost of the bullet?
Again, rhetorical question.
Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb "
Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The
cost of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance
of the writer is staggering.
The program costs $314 million. How often has this bomb been used? Rhetorical
question. If a hitman is paid $100k for an operation to assassinate one
(or several persons), is the overall cost of that hit the cost of the bullet?
Again, rhetorical question. In my career I was involved in a few defense
projects and the $314M sounds about right for a whole program for such a
product. The way government programs work, they are vastly more expensive
than the commercial programs I normally managed.
The $170k cost for an individual MOAB still sounds a little low. If you
add in the operational costs involved in actually getting it delivered,
it would be more reasonable that it will cost at least a million to get
one on that cave, but certainly not 314 million.
As a side note one defense project I worked on was in partnership with Raytheon.
This was years ago when the DOD was on a fad for " fixed cost " programs.
As the costs mounted and the company burned through all the government money,
and reached the point where it was spending its own money to meet the DOD's
demands, Raytheon offered to let us have the whole thing ourselves. My company
took over the whole thing and spent all the profits it had made on our commercial
projects to pay for the DOD project. Eventually we were bought out by a
famous organization that specializes in buying distressed business properties,
then parting them out and reselling the pieces at a handsome profit. I don't
think the DOD project ever got finished and deployed.
400 Words
@Anonymous White Male "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm
referring to the global capitalist establishment"
Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.
"(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't
go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform
the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"
Oh, I guess he is referring to "the jews". Even though I'm still not much
of a capitalist, this is precisely why I abandoned the left. I just couldn't
go through life policing my own thoughts in such a fashion. However hard
I tried, I could just never quite manage to 'unsee' all those 'coincidences',
such as how banking, foreign policy and the MSM are now almost completely
Jew-dominated. I could never unsee how one tiny little country in the middle
east–with a higher per capita income than our own!–was able to lay claim
to the majority of our foreign aid (plus countless wars and Security Council
vetoes) year after year after year. I just couldn't unsee how we're building
monuments to the Holocaust in our own capital, even though our country had
absolutely to do with it! In fact, we were at war with the very country
that was. But we're supposed to feel guilty over something we never
did.
My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that all
the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. That was far too high a percentage
to be random. And once I started reading up on them, I was astonished at
how closely they resembled the early Russian bolsheviks in their methods
and worldview. I finally came to the conclusion that the Jew-mafia doesn't
really care whether a system is capitalist or communist, so long as their
little Jew-mafia controls it.
Do I hate all Jews? No, of course. For example, I have immense respect
for Mr. Unz because of his work through the years, culminating in the founding
of this very–and very excellent–website. It may well be that the truly dangerous
Jews are actually small in number; unfortunately though, it seems that they
all too well how to push the buttons of most of the other Jews so as enforce
the tribal mentality. Witness how they behaved during the Trump campaign
(and yes, I am now over him, too): rage, desperation, hysteria! You would've
thought Trump was a brownshirt or a cossack on horseback! Instead, he turned
out to be just another bankster-controlled zionist.
I have come to the conclusion that this Jew-mafia–along with their new-world-order
goy allies, such as the Rockefellers–are the greatest menace our world now
knows. Read More
300 Words those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and, no,
I'm not referring to "the Jews,"
Why of course you're not, since you're smart enough to know that referring
to the ones controlling those TBTF Wall Street casinos, who get bailed out
by us deplorables when their bets go bust or asking why only American or
Israeli Jews are appointed to the FED, or wonder why only 'Chosen Ones'
get the top US Treasury job would be career suicide, as your ability to
make some shekels from writing would get deep-sixed, by the same gang you
don't want to refer to.
And that same group that we will not mention, also wields a lot of influence
in the MSM, telling LIES about Russia or covering up the LIES they told
before we invaded Iraq, but again, let's not mention that, as one would
suffer the attack of being called all sorts of names, from the group of
puppet masters that DON'T exist:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals,
most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the
course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles
Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you
the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block
radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island
a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110
Trump has one thing in common with antifa 'leftists'. Everything is
infused with Pop Culture, and narcissism rules everything. Everyone is showboating.
@mp "...and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to
the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them
in power..."
Thanks for clearing that up, for us. And thanks for not using the word
"ass" or "asshat" as many times as you did in your last submission. Three
or four times an article is plenty. Still wondering what asshat means.
@Greg Bacon those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and,
no, I'm not referring to "the Jews,"
Why of course you're not, since you're smart enough to know that referring
to the ones controlling those TBTF Wall Street casinos, who get bailed out
by us deplorables when their bets go bust or asking why only American or
Israeli Jews are appointed to the FED, or wonder why only 'Chosen Ones'
get the top US Treasury job would be career suicide, as your ability to
make some shekels from writing would get deep-sixed, by the same gang you
don't want to refer to.
And that same group that we will not mention, also wields a lot of influence
in the MSM, telling LIES about Russia or covering up the LIES they told
before we invaded Iraq, but again, let's not mention that, as one would
suffer the attack of being called all sorts of names, from the group of
puppet masters that DON'T exist:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals,
most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the
course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles
Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the
names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block
radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island
a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110
Yes, and notice how brazen some of them are now getting: even if you don't
explicitly attack Jews, whenever you try and criticize high-finance, the
mainstream media, neo-conservatism or Israel, often they will be
the first to raise the issue by hollering 'anti-semite!!!' pre-emptively,
as it were.
100 Words
@Anonymous White Male "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm
referring to the global capitalist establishment"
Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.
"(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't
go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform
the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"
Oh, I guess he is referring to "the jews". Cowardly brainwashed Hopkins
tiptoes around the jooies .the only group that cannot be depicted accurately
in public. A caveat has to be added .. "some of my best friends and mentors
are jooies (Linh Dinh)", "not all jooies are neocon Izzy firsters", "Unz
is a good guy", etc etc. We have a first amendment here .unlike the subservient
canadian colony and the hopeless euroweanies who actually prosecute "hate
speech". The jooies run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system,
run the entertainment industries and deserve all the hatred heaped on them
and then some. Read More
TG ,
April 22, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT \n
Trump's an emotional idiot who speaks before thinking, but at least
he's brutally honest and trying do what he promised he would do as president
doing his campaign run.
If Hillary, Bernie or anyone else had won we'd be fighting either
WWIII with Russia over a desert landscape or we'd be suffering from yet
another abysmal phyric victory in the middle east.
Either way trillions of dollars are wasted bombing weddings, funerals,
soldiers and Muslims while even more millions lives are dislocated and yet
another quagmire of a terrorist overrun shit hole opens up right next to
Europe and Russia while Turkey becomes the next national province to be
shafted by ISIS on their ever expanding question of death and destruction.
The author of this article should be aware of Godwin's law. Though he
technically didn't invoke it, he brought attention to his article by bringing
in the most recognizable evil personified among weak minds.
Anyone who has done any objective reading of history would find that
the figure that he used as a vehicle to lubricate his rant (with which I
mostly agree) was a far more an interesting and logical personage than is
commonly understood by 99.999% of the world's populace.
How is it that you can't pick up a mainstream newspaper on any given
day now, 67 years after Nazism in Germany was totally eradicated without
reading about some reference to either Hitler or Nazism?
No Stalin, no Mao, No Pol Pot, no Timur The lame. It is Uncle Adi 24/7.
When you make historical inquiry illegal ( Holohoax) , and constantly
kick dead dogs ( Hitler, Nazism) people who are capable of thinking sooner
or later are going to wonder what is up with this?. But they are now numerically
an endangered species. The internet, the last bastion of disseminating truth
unfortunately is creating more idiots than enlightened people by by a factor
of 100,000 to one.
May those mongrel dogs sleep well. In this world we have the (their)
law, but in the next one we will have justice.
@Carlton Meyer Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped
into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator,
national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly
schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of
lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans
to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the
planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.
@Carlton Meyer Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped
into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator,
national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly
schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of
lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans
to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the
planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNl10qb1IVM
Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the
ring and forfeited.
Was it a con all along? It is hard for me to believe this.
These are people who have no problem murdering entire families
by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone
really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire
to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened
to win a presidential election?
There are a lot of well-meaning Americans who will go to their early
graves thinking they still have the luxury of lying about the real nature
of the problem: "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring
to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep
them in power".
Get 1/2 million people in DC and hold Trump's feet to the fire to going
back on his promises. Wake up, you're a smart fella you'll never change
anything in this system It can't be reformed, only smashed.
Sean ,
April 23, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT \n
These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day
and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really
think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire
to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened
to win a presidential election?
Hilarious, and definitely the money line!
These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by
day and going home and playing with their kids at night.
What is that supposed to mean? Human history would look a lot different
if it had been made by men who loved their own families and others'
families so much, they made nothing bad happened to any family. A
lot of countries have structurally interlocking group rivalries, and every
individual is determined to fight for their family (often consanguineous)
to an extent that is very rare in the US. Many such places are going to
be at war for at least a generation. Of course other countries ,the closest
first and their allies will get drawn in . The US is just a country, not
somewhere that families transcend the human condition.
I have trouble imagining President Trump acquiescing happily to being
a political broker-in-chief, or front man for other peoples' interests.
He has more than three and a half years left of his term. Will President
Trump risk personal safety and the possibility of impeachment to go for
a long yardage political play that'll reassert his freedom of action? I
don't have a clue, but the last week or so I've been seeing a man who immensely
dislikes having been reduced to flunkiedom by our permanent government.
Agent76 ,
April 23, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
@Seamus Padraig Even though I'm still not much of a capitalist, this
is precisely why I abandoned the left. I just couldn't go through life policing
my own thoughts in such a fashion. However hard I tried, I could just never
quite manage to 'unsee' all those 'coincidences', such as how banking, foreign
policy and the MSM are now almost completely Jew-dominated. I could never
unsee how one tiny little country in the middle east--with a higher per
capita income than our own!--was able to lay claim to the majority of our
foreign aid (plus countless wars and Security Council vetoes) year after
year after year. I just couldn't unsee how we're building monuments to the
Holocaust in our own capital, even though our country had absolutely to
do with it! In fact, we were at war with the very country that was. But
we're supposed to feel guilty over something we never did.
My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that
all the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. That was far too
high a percentage to be random. And once I started reading up on them, I
was astonished at how closely they resembled the early Russian bolsheviks
in their methods and worldview. I finally came to the conclusion that the
Jew-mafia doesn't really care whether a system is capitalist or communist,
so long as their little Jew-mafia controls it.
Do I hate all Jews? No, of course. For example, I have immense respect for
Mr. Unz because of his work through the years, culminating in the founding
of this very--and very excellent--website. It may well be that the truly
dangerous Jews are actually small in number; unfortunately though, it seems
that they all too well how to push the buttons of most of the other Jews
so as enforce the tribal mentality. Witness how they behaved during the
Trump campaign (and yes, I am now over him, too): rage, desperation, hysteria!
You would've thought Trump was a brownshirt or a cossack on horseback! Instead,
he turned out to be just another bankster-controlled zionist.
I have come to the conclusion that this Jew-mafia--along with their new-world-order
goy allies, such as the Rockefellers--are the greatest menace our world
now knows. This article helps keep it real. Jun. 14, 2012 These 6 Corporations
Control 90% Of The Media In America
That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983. But the fact that
a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal
Dad says.
Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where the bankers
feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order to dupe the
electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too much during the
Presidential election this last time around too?
Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the
election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's what
I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war chord,
being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel. It's just talking
out of both sides of your mouth.
But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now – no telling what
he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi kill-a-thon
in full blossom.
@Backwoods Bob Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where
the bankers feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order
to dupe the electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too
much during the Presidential election this last time around too?
Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the
election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's
what I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war
chord, being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel.
It's just talking out of both sides of your mouth.
But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now - no telling what
he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi
kill-a-thon in full blossom.
Hang on to your hats. But who knows. Trump is a wild card for
me now – no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq
ISIS/Assad/ Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom.
Trump has scored a ZERO when it comes to defunding ISIS. In his campaign,
he talked about cutting off their money – now nothing!
Saudi Wahhabism is responsible for ISIS and its terror.
If anything, he has sided with the Saudis – and helped them destroy Yemen.
This must stop if we want peace in the ME.
Peace - Art
p.s. Trump and the Saudis must have the same bankers – what's their name
– Rothschild?
100 Words
@nsa Cowardly brainwashed Hopkins tiptoes around the jooies.......the
only group that cannot be depicted accurately in public. A caveat has to
be added..... "some of my best friends and mentors are jooies (Linh Dinh)",
"not all jooies are neocon Izzy firsters", "Unz is a good guy", etc etc.
We have a first amendment here....unlike the subservient canadian colony
and the hopeless euroweanies who actually prosecute "hate speech". The jooies
run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system, run the entertainment
industries......and deserve all the hatred heaped on them and then some.
The jooies run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system,
run the entertainment industries and deserve all the hatred heaped
on them and then some.
Fine. But not Ron Unz, who is indeed a good guy who's willing to allow
his website to become a platform for helping to expose the zionists, Fedsters,
et al. An honest man is still an honest man, even if he's Jewish.
"... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
"... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
"... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
"... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
"... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
"... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
"... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
Above all, President Trump did one thing decisively.
He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense,
H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men
already deeply implicated in America's
failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left
them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he
told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing
and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."
As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of
America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment
to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No
one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those
unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that
have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.
That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of
Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements,
tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his
all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've
ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite.
Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the
growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president
and his
billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking
under him.
When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable
without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness
to
pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11
years; without the building up of the national security state and its
17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an
unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent
(yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts
of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would
have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces
increasingly
equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with
veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders
narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protégés; and without a political class
of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.
In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news
and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized
extremity that preceded him.
After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global
War on Terror" against
60 countries (the "
swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons
of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced
bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then
used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald
Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was
for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and
landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were
at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane "
Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.
It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the
CIA to
kidnap terror suspects (including
totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands
of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA "
black sites
" where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience
the sensation of drowning
83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to
claim that he would bring torture back as president).
It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global "
kill list ," running "
Terror
Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to
assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being
praised (or criticized) for his "caution."
It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a
secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel
who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a
large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of
the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion
and the overall national security budget to something like a
trillion dollars or more, even
as America's civilian infrastructure
aged and buckled .
It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated
$60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who
decided to
build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't
Donald Trump who sent in the
warrior corporations to
squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to
put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least
$25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would
collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least
$65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with
ghost soldiers .
In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts.
Nonetheless, in the last 15 years,
forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in
turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and
inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt
political universe of Washington but those generals.
As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had
entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically,
such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only
because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition"
had actually taken us.
The previous two presidents had
played the warrior regularly,
donning military
outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and
saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also
trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are
playing the president.
It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon,
his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now
reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first
nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except
promoting himself ).
Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican
who had been a
Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as
a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt
just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances
and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.
In the world of the media, it's stylish to be
shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office
still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the
Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or
a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality
TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)
If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different
sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing,
but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is
working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the
moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.
Honeymoon of the Generals
Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period.
Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.
Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly
headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon
fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his
promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and
building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the
cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and
few key secondary posts being filled.
In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon
of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones
flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as
in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed,
children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly
praised
"presidential" moments .
So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him,
big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while
hugging them tighter yet.
Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in
Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like
them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever
deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror
movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a
decade and a half later, produce more positive results.
What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right
on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best
they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism
starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.
What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next?
Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?
"Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it
knows." this is pretty damning statement which reminds of the Bush Ii administration Dick Cheney mafia
of neocons which conrolled Bush II almost completely. Actually key figures are Trump administration
such as Secretary of Defense and the head of national security council are friend of Paul Wolfowitz
Notable quotes:
"... Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East. ..."
"... The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. ..."
"... Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows. ..."
"... Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia. ..."
Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable
loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than
the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President
Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest
to the action in the Middle East.
Many officers have expressed frustration and anger over what has taken place-not to challenge
national-security policy, which they leave up to the politicians, but because they are perceiving
a tissue of lies, as in Iraq. They have expressed their concerns in very specific ways to former
fellow officers and friends. For the first time, people on the inside of the process are really talking.
And we have been listening, astonished at the level of anger.
The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian
forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. U.S. monitors, who had been warned by the
Russians that an attack was coming, believe they saw from satellite images something close to the
Russian account of events, with a bomb hitting the targeted warehouse, which then produced a cloud
of gas. They also note that Syria had absolutely no motive for staging a chemical attack. In fact,
it was quite the contrary, as Washington had earlier that week backed off from the U.S. position
that President Bashar al-Assad should be removed from office. The so-called rebels, however, had
plenty of motive. Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and
concealing what it knows.
Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish
the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those
on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active
plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go
will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result
in conflict with Russia.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Students of international affairs who take the long view have for some time been worried about
the trajectory of U.S.-China relations. While in theory a cooperative relationship would be most
beneficial to both parties, in practice dominant powers and rising challengers rarely are able
to work out a fruitful accommodation. Instead, most often the two stumble into a conflict that
devastates both countries' interests.
Graham Allison calls the underlying
theory -
detailed in his new book - the Thucydides Trap. So long as both powers rationally assume that
the dominant power aims to maintain its supremacy, even accommodative policies will be interpreted
as a way to get the rising power to settle for less than it might achieve by revisionist agitations.
So if the dominant power is accommodative, the rising power will take advantage, provoking a reversal
by the dominant power and a confrontation. But if the dominant power is confrontational and tries
to encircle the rising power, it will provoke the rising power to break out - and in the meantime
the dominant power will exhaust its resources more quickly than the rising power does, accelerating
the power transition.
So how can war be avoided?
Allison's prescription is for robust communication along with a willingness on the part of
the dominant power to think big in terms of how the international order will have to change to
accommodate the rising power. Rather than try to prevent or limit the power transition, the dominant
power has to facilitate it, get the rising power to understand that this is in fact the policy,
and thereby forge a cooperative path through the transition that gives both powers an appropriate
role to their new relative power position. I've argued in this space before that
Korea would be a perfect place to try to
achieve those twin goals.
The Obama administration's much-touted but never-completed "pivot" to Asia could be understood
as an effort to preserve America's position within the context of partnership with China - or
as an effort to contain China and maintain American supremacy. Strengthened alliances with countries
like Australia and Vietnam were intended to discourage China from adventurism in its near-abroad,
while the Trans-Pacific Partnership was
designed to counter Chinese economic leadership in the region. On the other hand, the TPP
did not explicitly exclude China, and it is plausible to think that its ultimate purpose was more
to keep America in than to keep China out. Obama clearly saw a value in working with the Chinese
rather than merely against them, but he also recognized that China intended to challenge America's
interests in the western Pacific and aimed to counter it.
We'll never know whether the Obama strategy would have been a way out of the Thucydides Trap,
or whether it would have led us right into it. We'll never know because President Trump has trashed
the strategy entirely,
pulling out of the
TPP , musing about
abandoning the one-China policy , threatening unilateral
action in Korea , and calling for tariffs on Chinese manufacturers. His initial policy mix
looked like it was premised on the assumption that war was inevitable, so we might as well make
it happen on our terms.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield: The Chinese realized we were bluffing.
Our military options in Korea
aren't really viable , and Trump has proved that he knows they aren't by his eagerness to
get the Chinese to handle the problem - eagerness so overwhelming it has already led him to
abandon a core campaign theme, confronting the Chinese on trade . Trump has already reaffirmed
the one-China policy. And he has not only gratuitously insulted
key
allies , but demonstrated tactical
incompetence in his communications about the mission of
the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson . Watching Trump, America's Asian allies surely
are questioning our reliability and basic competence, while the Chinese surely are far less worried
that America will be able to restrain their rise even if we desire to do so.
Normally, this would provoke the rising power to be more confrontational. But if the Chinese
really understand Trump, they'll see that they could get far more by picking his pocket than by
mugging him. Trump is transparently eager for a deal - almost any deal. The Chinese could probably
ask for the moon and the stars - or control of the South China Sea - in exchange for minor promises
- to let their currency rise a bit (which has already happened), to build a few manufacturing
plants in Ohio, to get North Korea to restrain itself for a few months. Why wouldn't the Chinese
try to get what they want at the table rather than taking the risk of a confrontation?
Of course, normally a political leader would pay a gruesome price for cutting a terrible deal
with a key rival. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese, the Republican
Party would go ballistic. But Donald Trump's brand is all about making America great again. His
most vocal liberal critics, meanwhile, are more concerned that he's going to stumble into World
War III than that he is going to be insufficiently firm in defending America's interests. While,
as with Syria, they may support any military actions he does take, they are unlikely to provoke
him into backing up his blustery threats with actual shows of force.
Paradoxically, Trump could achieve by sloth and incompetence what is very difficult for dominant
powers to accept: a transition out of that dominant position.
Has there ever been a bigger
or worse April fools joke than the
spectacle this month of Donald Trump
revealing the manifold ways in which he
fooled the multitudes? I sympathize with
the many people who hoped for a shot at
changing the corrupt
political-industrial establishment as
they feel their opportunity evaporate
around them. Their hopes were the best
hope this nation had, but
the head-spinning transformation
of Trump has turned stomachs to
where some of Trump's most ardent
campaign supporters now publicly deem
him Traitor Trump. The rest are simply
hoping against hope that he is not.
Everyone, conservative or liberal,
is seriously starting to wonder what
happened to Candidate Trump.
This is what April has consistently
revealed: If you voted for the Donald
because you wanted to end America's
endless wars for regime change and
failed attempts at nation building, you
got Trumped. If you thought Hillary's
red reset button with Russia was a
disaster and so you voted for the orange
reset button as a path to peace with
Russia, you got Trumped. If you voted
for the Tweeter in Chief because he
promised to get tough on trade with
China, you got Trumped. If you voted for
Trump in order to thump Fed Head Janet
Yellen; she doesn't get thumped, but you
got Trumped.
Back in September when he was still just Candidate Trump, I
wrote an article titled "
Trump:
Trojan Horse for the Establishment or Mighty Mouth for
Mankind?
" I knew that pointing out my deep reservations
about Trump would cost me readers because I write an
anti-establishment blog, and Trump was the
anti-establishment candidate of choice. I published the
article anyway. It not only cost me readers (from which I
haven't recovered), but it also cost me websites that had
been carrying my articles. Such is the pursuit of truth over
popularity
Nevertheless, I continued to write on that theme in the
months that followed because I believed the warning was
important and because I choose to see and describe the world
as it is (as best I can) and not how I want it to be.
Because I criticize any political party as readily as
another, I am often seen as too conservative by liberals and
too liberal by conservatives. (I don't get the benefit of
club membership that gains a writer an easy loyal
following.) So be it.
Here is some of that article, which is now looking like it
was spot on:
I crave the opportunity to see an anti-establishment
candidate win the election. I would exult in seeing our
corrupt establishment shattered. So, while I do not like
Trump the man (as it would appear he has never
done anything that didn't entirely serve his own
self-interest and pompous ego), I have thoroughly
enjoyed seeing him upset establishment Republicans and
establishment Democrats alike. (And, yes, they are
"alike," so let's just call them "the establishment"
because whether they are Republican or Democrat is not
relevant; both parties exist to serve the same rich
people and themselves either way.)
I'll even acknowledge that perhaps it takes someone as
brazen and blusterous as Trump in order to stand up to
such a powerful assemblage of egoists as we have
embedded in congress and in the president's
administration, which now rules by decree . While I have
never liked this particular publicity whore, I'd put up
with his relentless boasting and forgive his audacious
past if it takes that kind of brassy, risk-taking
adventurer to find someone with enough spine to stand up
to the intimidations of congress . Whether or not I like
him is not important unless it is leading me to see
flaws that may mean Trump is not what he makes himself
out to be.
From there, I pointed out such character flaws as made me
believe Trump would not prove to be what he was making
himself out to be. He would let his anti-establishment
supporters down hard:
Overturning a vast global establishment is the kind of
battle that will take someone with unbelievable
tenacity, intelligence, and courage. The opponents are
rich, and you can be sure some are willing to kill to
keep the status quo that is making them immensely rich
(and
have
killed).
Unfortunately, I have seen often in life that bellicose
people are usually nowhere near as brave as they sound.
People like Ike, who was strong in war and humble in
attitude, are usually the ones with real courage. It is
not usually the most blustery people who have the
deepest strength to carry through with the right thing
for the right reasons, regardless of cost to themselves.
Trump is aptly named for how often he blows his own horn
in order to create his own image; but his actions show
he backed out of previous presidential races when it was
clear they weren't going to be an easy win after getting
lots of publicity for teasing people with the
possibility that he'd run. He has also backed out of
many business deals when things got rough, rather than
push forward to try to make things work .
It's his latest political actions that concern me. In
the few places where we have seen Trump make actual
political decisions so far, his choices have been 100%
pro-establishment as I pointed out in a recent article
titled "
Whirled
Politics: Would you rather be Trumped or Pillaried
?"
I wished very much to see something different than what
I am seeing.
The article delineated a number of tell-tale signs that
indicated Trump was anything but the anti-establishment
candidate he was presenting himself to be. I pointed out,
for example, how the Trump horse that was being brought
into the city gates was filled with neocons and the Wall
Street establishment, and how I believed they would come to
own Trump if they didn't already. The Trump horse was
brazenly anti-establishment on the outside, but almost total
establishment on the inside.
I concluded my intro to the article with this warning:
Be careful that you don't believe something
just because you want to believe it so badly. That is
how the citizens of Troy were conquered in the Trojan
war. I'd love to have an anti-establishment candidate
roll in, too. Sadly, I don't think I do . The time to
hold Trump to task is now, not after the
establishment makeover turns him into their Trojan Trump
card, but while they are trying so that they don't
succeed.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
"... One of the many irritating things about the dominant United States corporate media is the way it repeatedly discovers anew things that are not remotely novel. Take its recent discovery that Donald Trump isn't really the swamp-draining populist working class champion he pretended to be on the campaign trail. ..."
"... Christopher Hitchens usefully described the "essence of American politics" as "the manipulation of populism by elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens noted: ..."
"... "which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can present itself as most 'in touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short, be the least apparently 'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every man a king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People First,' but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that solid, measurable pledges have to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers." ..."
"... Dressing elite class and economic interests in popular garb has always been a core function of the U.S. electoral and party system in its various iterations. Its first assignment was to rally ordinary citizens as voters for different factions of the developing nation's bourgeois class in its recurrent intra-capitalist policy struggles. ..."
"... American capitalism has an equally evil Siamese twin called imperialism , progenitor of the giant "national security" and "foreign apparatus" that eats up the lion's share of U.S. federal discretionary spending – at no small cost to social and environmental health even as it provides s rich revenue stream for the nation's unelected dictatorship of money. "The costs of empire," Chomsky wrote nearly half a century ago , "are in general distributed over the whole of society, white its profits revert to a few within." ..."
"... stop giving the American capitalist ruling class a free pass on Donald Trump, hoping for the neoliberal deep state" to bring about his demise from the top down ..."
"... Trump was never really an anti-establishment candidate beyond the deceptive rhetoric he cynically employed – consistent with the longstanding fake-populist "essence of American [and bourgeois] politics" – to win enough white working class and rural votes to prevail over dismal, dollar-drenched Hillary Clinton. And you don't have to join the right-wing conspiracy mongers at Zero Hedge to agree with them that " Trump is where the elites want him" and "serves the establishment." ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... "Here there is a convergence around the system's political need for social control and its economic need to perpetuate accumulation. Unprecedented global inequalities can only be sustained by ever more repressive and ubiquitous systems of social control and repression. Yet quite apart from political considerations, the TCC has acquired a vested interest in war, conflict, and repression as a means of accumulation. CIT has revolutionized warfare and the modalities of state-organized militarized accumulation, including the military application of vast new technologies and the further fusion of private accumulation with state militarization ." ..."
"... Trump, his team of politicized generals, and his call for a 10 percent increase in the already hyper-bloated Pentagon budget are a perfect match for the militarized accumulation strategy, with its "built-in war drive." ..."
"... Waiting for supposedly enlightened and decent elites atop the "deep state" to dump Trump is a fool's game. As Robinson says, "Only a worldwide push back from below, and ultimately a program to redistribute wealth and power downward, can counter the upward spiral of international conflagration." Join the debate on Facebook ..."
One of the many irritating things about the dominant United States corporate media is the way
it repeatedly discovers anew things that are not remotely novel. Take its recent discovery that Donald
Trump isn't really the swamp-draining populist working class champion he pretended to be on the campaign
trail.
The evidence for this "news" is solid enough. His cabinet and top advisor circle has been chock
full of ruling class swamp creatures like former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn (top economic
adviser), longtime top Goldman Sachs partner and top executive Steve Mnuchin (Secretary of the Treasury),
and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce). Trump has surrounded himself with super-opulent
and planetarily invested financial gatekeepers – the very club he criticized Hillary Clinton for
representing.
Trump meets regularly with top corporate and financial CEOs, who have been assured that he will
govern in accord with their wishes. He receives applause from business elites for his agenda of significant
large scale tax cuts and deregulation for wealthy individuals and for the giant, hyper-parasitic,
and largely transnational corporations they milk for obscene profits
Trump's political strategist Steve Bannon is by numerous reports being pushed aside by Cohn and
by Trump's hedge-fund financier son-in-law Jared Kushner – a longtime neoliberal Democrat – when
it comes to holding the president's ear. Bannon has been reduced to bitterly
cursing Kushner as a "globalist cuckservative."
Bannon's white-nationalist "populist" bluster was of great electoral use to Trump on his path
to the White House. In the real world of world capitalist power, however, the Beast of Breitbart
is a liability. His self-declared nationalism does not jibe with the
deeply rooted Open Door policy preferences of an American corporate and financial ruling class
that has long been deeply invested across national boundaries in the world capitalist system.
Trump, it turns out, is not the worker-friendly populist he posed as while running for president.
He's not the great anti-establishment outsider determined to return "power to the people" he claimed
to be in his Inauguration Address. His economic program amounts to neo-liberalism on steroids.
You don't say! Gee, who knew? Anyone who's paid serious attention to American electoral politics
and policy over the course of history, that's who. Seventeen years ago, the then still left
Christopher Hitchens usefully described the "essence of American politics" as "the manipulation of populism by
elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens noted:
"which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can present itself as most 'in
touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short,
be the least apparently 'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every
man a king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People First,'
but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that solid, measurable pledges have
to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers."
Democracy Imprisoned by Capitalism
In a recent
New York Times Magazine reflection on the chilling extent to which Trump's rise is consistent
with dodgy, fascist-like tendencies in the long history of the American right, the prolific liberal
historian Rick Perlstein notes that the irony of a "populist" president who has "placed so many bankers
and billionaires in his cabinet, and has relentlessly pursued so many 1-percent-friendly policies"
is "far from unique." The Orange-Tinted Beast is the latest version of what Perlstein calls "The
often-cynical negotiation between populist electioneering and plutocratic governance on the right."
Perlstein is right to note the unoriginality of the phenomenon. But why does Perlstein seem to
think the "cynical negotiation" is just a Republican phenomenon? It was no less evident in the presidencies
of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama than it was during the Reagan and Bush presidencies
and under Trump today. That is no small part of
how and why the ugly Republican right that Perlstein understandably fears gets its recurrent
trips into national and state-level power.
And just how mysterious is the tension between "populist electioneering and plutocratic governance"?
From Karl Marx's time and before to the present day, bourgeois "constitutional" states practicing
a strictly limited and deceptive form of "democracy" have been torn by a fundamental contradiction.
On one hand, victorious candidates have to win enough popular votes to prevail in elections. They
can hardly do that by proclaiming their commitment to the rule of the wealthy capitalist Few. On
the other hand, they cannot garner the resources to win elections and govern effectively without
the backing and cooperation of the investor/capitalist class, whose control of money and the means
of production is critical to political power and policymaking.
"U.S. corporations exercised power over communities, much like Kings do over feudal serfs,
by exercising ownership over the means of production in the U.S. economy. They command worker
loyalty due to their ability to hire and fire Americans and provide basic benefits such as health
care or 401k and pension benefits. But corporations also possess the power to destroy people's
lives via capital flight. Simply by threatening to leave a community and move factories abroad
in pursuit of higher profits and weaker environmental regulations, corporations hold citizens
hostage The marketplace is a prison, Lindblom warned, because these corporations ultimately control
the levers of the U.S. economy, and control the life outcomes of American workers."
Beyond the ownership and investment/disinvestment levers, concentrated capital achieves policy,
cultural, and societal outcomes it prefers in
numerous
other ways : the buying of candidates and election through campaign donations; the flooding of
government with armies of well-heeled lobbyists; the drafting and dissemination of Big Business-friendly
legislation; massive investment in public relations and propaganda to influence the beliefs and values
of citizens, politicians, and other "opinion-shapers"; direct "revolving door" capture of key government
positions; the offer of private sector positions to public officials who reasonably expect significantly
increased compensation once they exit government; the "cognitive [ideological] capture" (every bit
as corrupting as bribery) of state officials, politicians, media personnel, educators, nonprofit
managers, and other "influential;" the destruction and undermining of organizations (i.e., labor
unions) that might offer some countervailing power to that of big business; the granting of jobs,
corporate board memberships, internships, and other perks and payments to public officials' family
members; the control of education and publishing; the ownership, management, and monitoring of mass
media (including "entertainment" as well as public affairs news and commentary).
The American philosopher John Dewey put things very well in
1931. He wrote
that "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business" and rightly prophesized that U.S.
politics would stay that way as long as power resided in "business for private profit through private
control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents, and other means
of publicity and propaganda."
Ten years later, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis made the elementary
Aristotelian observation
that Americans "must make our choice. We may have democracy," Brandeis wrote, "or we may have
wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." That was an unwitting call for
the abolition of capitalism, which is marked among other things by an inherent tendency towards the
upward concentration of wealth and power.
Let the People Be Taught
The fundamental contradiction between bottom-up democratic pretense and top-down class-rule reality
is nothing new in American history. The New England clergyman Jeremy Belknap captured the fundamental
idea behind the U.S. Founders' curious notion of what they liked to call "popular government." "Let
it stand as a principle,"
Belknap wrote to an associate in the late 1780s, "that government originates from the people,
but let the people be taught that they are unable to govern themselves."
Dressing elite class and economic interests in popular garb has always been a core function of
the U.S. electoral and party system in its various iterations. Its first assignment was to rally
ordinary citizens as voters for different factions of the developing nation's bourgeois class in
its recurrent intra-capitalist policy struggles. Across much of the 19th century, some leading U.S.
investors sought to advance their interests in the development of the domestic U.S. market and a
manufacturing economy by pushing through an "American System" of government-subsidized internal improvements
(transportation infrastructure above all), government central banks, and tariffs on imports. These
capitalists tended to align with and fund the Whig Party and its anti-slavery successor the Republican
Party. More export-, agricultural-, and free trade-oriented investors aligned with the Democratic
Party.
These not insignificant differences aside, all these bourgeois parties made feverish electoral
appeals to mass constituencies in the name of "the common man" to win votes in a republic with comparatively
wide (universal white male across most of the nation by the eve of the Civil War) suffrage. The competing
parties needed to "masquerade as commoners" (in the words of the late and great
U.S. historian Alfred F. Young ) to elected politicians pledged to the "bankrollers and backers"
preferred path of capitalist development. The Hitchensian game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" – first came into own not during the time of Huey Long but a century before in the Andrew
Jacksonian so-called "age of the common man."
"No Way to Vote Against Goldman Sachs" .
Policy specifics and party alignments have since shifted more than once in accord with underlying
political-economic and demographic factors. Still, the basic manipulative reality captured in Left
political scientist
Thomas
Ferguson's "investment theory of [U.S. two-] party competition" has continued throughout. During
the 1930s and 1940s, Ferguson has shown, the labor-allied New Deal (Franklin Roosevelt) Democratic
Party rose to power with critical support from highly capital intensive multinational corporations
and internationally oriented investment banks who were less concerned about wage bills than the more
nationally oriented, anti-union, and protectionist industrial firms that dominated the reigning (Teddy
Roosevelt, William McKinley and Howard Taft) Republican Party at the turn of the 20th century.
The end of rapid growth and of the United States' short-lived and near-absolute post-World War
II global economic hegemony during the late 1960s produced inflation and growing fiscal and trade
deficits, leading to sharply raised interest rates, a strengthened dollar, and an unprecedented flow
of surplus capital from industry to finance. The resulting new finance capital explosion transformed
the American party system, which stabilized around 1980 with high finance atop the "hegemonic bloc"
of political (as well as economic) investors. With the
arch-neoliberal
Clinton presidency of the 1990s , big finance capital had clearly taken over the Democratic Party
as well as the Republicans, along with most of the nation's nonfinancial corporations.
There have been differences in the investor class profiles of the two dominant parties through
this century. "Defense" (military) and oil and other Big Carbon firms have tended to tilt towards
the Republicans. Silicon Valley and Hollywood lean Democratic. Beneath such differences, the 1% is
united in neoliberal consensus across both parties around Wall Street-led globalization and a huge
Pentagon System to expand and protect global finance capitalism. Both the Republicans and the Democrats
are committed to the neoliberal world-capitalist and imperial order, with big finance calling the
shots while unions, the working class, and the poor are relegated to the margins.
The two major parties have different historical, demographic, ethno-cultural, religious, and geographic
profiles that matter. Still, they are united at the end of the day in their shared manipulations
of carefully calibrated populist rhetoric and voter and partisan identity on behalf of the bipartisan
super-rich and their global empire. As the Left author
Chris Hedges noted four years ago :
"Both sides of the political spectrum are manipulated by the same forces. If you're some right-wing
Christian zealot in Georgia, then it's homosexuals and abortion and all these, you know, wedge
issues that are used to whip you up emotionally. If you are a liberal in Manhattan, it's – you
know, they'll be teaching creationism in your schools or whatever Yet in fact it's just a game,
because whether it's Bush or whether it's Obama, Goldman Sachs always wins. There is no way to
vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs."
or (Earlier) J.P. Morgan
The Machiavellian ruling class exploitation of what is today called "identity politics" is also
less than novel in the American historical experience. Fierce class conflict fueled by intense class
consciousness roiled the industrializing United States across the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
creating the most violent labor history in the world during those years. But great
working class and
farmer rebellions against the emergent new corporate plutocracy never translated into national
politics thanks to the prior existence of a constitutionally mandated
winner-take-all
two party and elections system that channeled ballots into one of two reigning capitalist parties
– aptly described by Upton Sinclair in 1904 as "two wings of the same bird of prey" – and in
accord with differences of race, ethnicity, religion, and region. State and national politics and
"voting behavior" were structured around
ethnocultural and related geographic (sectional) factors. It's not for nothing that the
Marxist American historian Alan Dawley once referred to the American ballot box as "the coffin
of class consciousness." With all due respect to Eugene Debs' high water mark returns in 1912 (a
mere 6% of the popular vote), there was little way to meaningfully vote against the interests of
J.P. Morgan, Averill Harriman, and John Rockefeller.
No Free Pass
It's become fashionable on both left and right in recent years to think of Wall Street's untouchable
power (along with that of Silicon Valley and the military industrial complex) as a reflection of
the rule of the permanent "deep state." In its more measured and workable (non-conspiratorial) usage,
the term refers to the embedded corporate and financial profit and power sectors that co-exist and
merge with entrenched government institutions prominently including but not restricted to the ever-mushrooming
national security state (we should include the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal
Reserve alongside the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI) to govern the nation behind the electoral and
parliamentary
"marionette theater" (Mike Lofgren) of the visible state and its pseudo-democratic election rituals.
But, with all due respect for the chilling expansion of the intertwined military, police, and
surveillance states, it is hard not to sense behind the notion of the "deep state" the simple and
less-than-secretive persistence of the class rule regime called capitalism. The harsh authoritarian
reality of what Noam Chomsky has wryly called "really existing capitalist democracy or
RECD, pronounced as 'wrecked'"
lives on today as long before. .
American capitalism has an
equally evil Siamese twin called imperialism , progenitor of the giant "national security" and
"foreign apparatus" that eats up the lion's share of U.S. federal discretionary spending – at no
small cost to social and environmental health even as it provides s rich revenue stream for the nation's
unelected dictatorship of money. "The costs of empire,"
Chomsky wrote nearly
half a century ago , "are in general distributed over the whole of society, white its profits
revert to a few within."
It is long past time for left thinkers to stop giving the American capitalist ruling class
a free pass on Donald Trump, hoping for the neoliberal deep state" to bring about his demise from
the top down . Yes, the elite financial campaign finance and speech royalty data suggest that
Hillary Clinton was Wall Street's preferred candidate last year. Still, Trump was never really an
anti-establishment candidate beyond the deceptive rhetoric he cynically employed – consistent with
the longstanding fake-populist "essence of American [and bourgeois] politics" – to win enough white
working class and rural votes to prevail over dismal, dollar-drenched Hillary Clinton. And you don't
have to join the right-wing conspiracy mongers at Zero Hedge to agree with them that "
Trump is where the elites want him" and "serves the establishment."
Militarized Accumulation
A recent teleSur English reflection by the brilliant Marxian sociologist William I. Robinson
notes that the transnational capitalist class (TCC) has turned to military investment as a solution
to its drastic over-accumulation of capital in an increasingly unequal and poverty-ridden world.
As
Robinson notes :
"Here there is a convergence around the system's political need for social control and its
economic need to perpetuate accumulation. Unprecedented global inequalities can only be sustained
by ever more repressive and ubiquitous systems of social control and repression. Yet quite apart
from political considerations, the TCC has acquired a vested interest in war, conflict, and repression
as a means of accumulation. CIT has revolutionized warfare and the modalities of state-organized
militarized accumulation, including the military application of vast new technologies and the
further fusion of private accumulation with state militarization ."
" The so-called wars on drugs, terrorism, and immigrants; the construction of border walls,
immigrant detention centers, and ever-growing prisons; the installation of mass surveillance systems,
and the spread of private security guard and mercenary companies, have all become major sources
of profit-making The class interests of the TCC, geo-politics, and economics come together around
militarized accumulation. The more the global economy comes to depend on militarization and conflict
the greater the drive to war and the higher the stakes for humanity after Trump's .victory, the
stock price of Corrections Corporation of America soared 40 percent, given Trump's promise to
deport millions Raytheon and Lockheed Martin reports spikes each time there is a new flare up
in the Middle East Within an hour of the April 6 th Tomahawk missile bombardment of
Syria, Raytheon's stock increased by $1 billion. Hundreds of private firms from around the world
have put in bids to construct Trump's infamous border wall."
Trump, his team of politicized generals, and his call for a 10 percent increase in the already
hyper-bloated Pentagon budget are a perfect match for the militarized accumulation strategy, with
its "built-in war drive."
Waiting for supposedly enlightened and decent elites atop the "deep state" to dump Trump is a
fool's game. As Robinson says, "Only a worldwide push back from below, and ultimately a program to
redistribute wealth and power downward, can counter the upward spiral of international conflagration."
Join the
debate on Facebook
In some ironic way, 2016 was highly
reminiscent of LBJ's decision to quit,
Gene McCarthy's obstreperousness, and
Hubert Humphrey's ill-fated anointment
as LBJ's designated successor.
Politically, LBJ was hugely unpopular,
whereas Obama was at his peak.
"Obama approval hits 60% as end of term
approaches @CNNPolitics "
With 50+ approval ratings according to some polls Trump is not far. Raining Tomahawks on some
ME country is "slam dunk" for approval ratings in the USA. Notwithstanding the fact that this
is a war crime.
You got what you wanted: "Republican Obama" -- another master of "bait and switch." Hell-bent
of the preservation of the US neoliberal empire at the expense of American people. But who cares
about American people. Let them eat cakes.
At least in foreign policy you now actually got Hillary. all campaign promises are firmly forgotten.
War drums beat is deafening. It's her policies that Trump is implementing. Why are you complaining
?
Here is a nice touch on the recent Trump gender transformation:
Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign,
Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more
like her.
He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:
"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas
that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children
yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the
United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?
Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual
suspects are driving him like a sports car.
The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was
better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the
Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.
Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually
horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday,
boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's
military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults,
children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he
was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.
This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him
to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that
no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!
Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.
Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings
weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.
Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually
believes what he says when he says it?
Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree
with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within
two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese
goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims.
Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for
itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust
anything the man says.
Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for
a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely
resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care
of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.
The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is,
lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your
nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply
weakness. Thus an ultimatum.
So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp
on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering
his grasp on power.
Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows
not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as
usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?
Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile
named the No Dong.
Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet
a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good
half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't
want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive
public of anything and, apparently, the President.
Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest
threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese
hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from
the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?)
In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe,
there goes NATO and with it the Empire.
Oops.
Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending
a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison
troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.
Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so
on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured.
And was. A work in progress, but going well.
ORDER
IT NOW
Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the
political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened.
Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The
country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world
in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.
Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to
day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming
an unbalanced Hillary.
Yet, apparently, he is.
(Reprinted from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
In
March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :
"we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country).
Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like
support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."
"As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the
MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind
of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...
I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald
Trump . "
Stone was correct and in a
Facebook
post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's
wilful ignorance).
"So It Goes"
I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong
-- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra
with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 --
and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.
It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs
on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it
by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in.
There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been
stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this
latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who
initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.
It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with
crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical
unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid
when he's clearly winning the civil war?
No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we
will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular
regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of
the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it
a State.
Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes
into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly
disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of
the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating
deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?").
No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'
No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the
public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant
analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something
far more sinister waits in the background .
Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's
well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis
of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.
Mike Whitney, "Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block and Emerging EU-Russia Superstate," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oJ9Tpn
Robert Parry, "Mainstream Media as Arbiters of Truth," Consortiumnews,
http://bit.ly/2oSDo8A
Mike Whitney, "Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oSDEo4
Bruce Cumings, "This is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations," The Nation,
http://bit.ly/2nUEroH
Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character
in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country,
my country, my heart aches for thee.
They wont stop until the 3rd Temple is built and their 'Messiah ' sits on the throne. . Oliver
Stone should make a movie about that.
Donald Trump ->
BLOTTO ,
Apr 19, 2017 10:10 PM
The Deep State will get deeper and the Swamp will get swampier, now that a true hero will retire:
"I have the full support of Speaker Ryan to continue as Chairman of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee." And a congressman since 2009.....heard lots of nice soundbites lately but not
much oversight or reform.... BLOTTO
->
Pinto Currency ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:07 PM
Check the Purple network on the Soros Channel. I think the next episode is "Give a snowflake a
lickin" or "Bash a geek", not sure which but should both be fun.
knukles ->
BigFatUglyBubble ,
Apr 19, 2017 7:38 PM
My slow progressive bud went to the palm reader who looked at his hand and said "You've been masturbating".
He asked her how she knew and if she could tell him anything about his future. She looked at his
face and sid; "You will be masturbating for a long time" Kinda like what looks like we gonna be doing.
"One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight
and win wars?"
The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g.,
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits
for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all
deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness
to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of
Aggression.
"One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight
and win wars?"
I suspect that consistent with the Art of the Deal, they may make it so that we are relieved that
we are only going to war with one.
Whewww, I was a fraid we were going to war with both NK and and Russia. Thank God we are only
going against NK! xrxs ->
SallySnyd ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:20 PM
Not sure winning is the goal. More and longer wars keep the MIC coffers filled, and then there
are lots of contracts on the backend for the cleanup and administration of natural resources.
GRDguy ,
Apr 19, 2017 7:38 PM
When they can't make good their promises, they break them by going to war.
Excellent )). This exactly matches my analysis and forecast. but "democrats" dont want change
him (impch) becouse he do only dirty job for neocons nazis and nwo... sad but true )))
me or you ,
Apr 19, 2017 7:48 PM
TR paraphrased: With neo-con planning, in 9 out of 10 cases we'll and/or others will be dead and
in the tenth case don't ask too many questions.
Consuelo ,
Apr 19, 2017 7:52 PM
26+ years since the fall & subsequent $plundering of the old Soviet Union. 26+ years of Cock-O-the-Walk,
Big-Dog-on-the-Block.
Apparently Bush's and Cheney's having done 9/11 with Vatican banker Rothschilds' tribal racist
"State of Israel," Faux Zion, "escaped" Mr. Stone's analysis; just as the CIA's guilt in their adjudicated
assassination of President Kennedy had been made 'settled law' in 'Hunt v. Marchetti' years before
the motion picture "JFK" was produced.
"Curious" how this other "limited hangout" ZioTalmud Hollywood Babylon (((agent of disinformation))),
another movie critic also in the context of "Fort Apache" leaves out the essence of true and Godly
analysis of what has befallen Isaiah's actual prophesied "Zion," America: the traitorous unadjudicated
satanic perfidy of 9/11 for false-war as "golem" for False Zion and the Saudi "royal" buggers by
the same Vatican banker-intermediary Deep State/Organized Crime FedScam faction all know funded Hitler,
staged the Holohoax, killed John and Martin to send us as papal catspaw to Indochina, and promotes
illegal and Muslim immigration.
Stone is a 911 Truther -but can't admit it. He's a coward. He was willing to jump on board the
911 truther train, but the train never left the station so he missed his chance. He wasn't willing
to take a lead role on this -probably a smart decision as all 911 celebrity Truthers have been marginalized.
iamerican4 ->
Savyindallas ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM
God Almighty, the Author of all Truth and Justice, America's Sovereign, is all a true American
fears.
None of us gets out of here alive; but those who serve and love God, ruled only by Truth and Justice,
have life eternal.
well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the
eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy
theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.
yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own
achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize
critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that
his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new American
century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started
speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand.
Kefeer ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:09 PM
Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare
and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered
naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries
for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big
the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance
operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost
control.
Oliver Stone is a fatuous lunatic who is very rarely right about anything. His powers of analysis
and sense of perspective are only marginally better than Noam Chomsky's, an individual who should
be immediately confined to a secured psychiatric facility under heavy physical and chemical restraint.
In this case, however, Stone is correct.
iamerican4 ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:16 PM
Anyone "leaving out" Bush, Cheney, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and NSA's having committed 9/11 while
pretending to "analyze" what's going on in Syria is neither an American nor God-fearing.
Savyindallas ->
iamerican4 ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:39 PM
There are other possibilities -they may be mentally retarded, thoroughly morally corrupt and evil
- or simply a pod person sheeple -totally oblivious to realty and the truth as they are hopelessly
intoxicated with the sweet smell of methane from having their head buried up their ass.
peterk ,
Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM
trump is prehaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesnt really care
about anything too much.
hes been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as
he isnt all that bright, so he just
Wonder what it is Mr. Oliver Stone finds so off-putting about Trump generally? Lawful borders?
How would Stone like being a rancher along those borders? Not so much one guesses.
order66 ,
Apr 19, 2017 9:32 PM
Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change?
Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia?
Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in
favor of the U.S.
Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern
us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.
"... If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means. ..."
None of the former POTUSs in the last thirty years had the vaguest notion of what presidential
propriety meant.
Bill Clinton was the most egregious candidate flaunting his sexual obsessions and miscreant
behavior before, during and after his tenure as POTUS.
W. was a disaster from the very beginning. He was unable to articulate, formulate, or even
implement any idea, program, or action without Darth Vader Cheney whispering into his war-obsessed,
vacuous mind.
Finally, we unwittingly anointed Obama, bereft of anything substantive except a contrived
history of his birth, sexuality, and accomplishments.
These aforementioned three candidates all became less than competent POTUSs.
Now, America has a person of no small amount of accomplishments. Yet, the biased media acted as
a surrogate psychiatrist pronouncing Donald 'completely unfit by temperament to become POTUS.'
Nonsense!
If we Americans could tolerate the three past stooges – fornicator, idiot, liar - then we
can easily embrace a man of high passion and good family values who knows how to read a financial
balance sheet. From the very beginning of Trump's race to the White House, I have admired the deftness
of Corey Lewandowski, a brash NH Yankee who had little patience for fools and naysayers. He was and
is a no-nonsense type of guy who means what he says and says what he means.
Now, a Stephen Bannon was brought in to shake up the Trump team, once again. I don't know Bannon
but I do like his profile. He was a naval officer, investment banker, entrepreneur, and a political
agitator [Breitbart News]. That is precisely what Trump needs right now.
"... One thing worth reiterating: Trump has largely shown himself to be no different than standard
Republicans on budget issues, and his core supporters still love him. It's as though they actually care
little about economic issues ..."
One thing worth reiterating: Trump has largely shown himself to be no different than standard
Republicans on budget issues, and his core supporters still love him. It's as though they actually
care little about economic issues and just want a guy who acts terribly towards minorities
and foreigners.
The southern rednecks who control the GOP believe in the Plantation Economy. The Plantation owner
exploits the slave and white trash labor and then hires the privileged white guys with the money
he extorts. White guys get ahead by brown nosing the wealthy plantation owner.
The alternative economy that is thriving is entrepreneurial and many people find it easy to
suck up to a rich white guy than to go on their own. It is a failing economic model but the only
one some people know.
I am not so sure. Trump folded. The "purple" revolution against him succeeded. He was unable
withstand the pressure of anti-Russian attacks and "Trump as a Russian agent" smear. Few people
love turncoats.
Now he is within just sex change operation difference from Hillary Clinton on foreign policy
issues. In other words he betrayed anti-war right -- an important part of his base. He also lost
paleoconservatives, another less important, but still a sizable part of his former base.
Out of his domestic promise the only part that still stands is the Trump Wall -- "building
the wall on the border with Mexico" project :-)
Also, on domestic issues he proved to be so incompetent, that I am not sure that any of his
supporters are exited about him. His dealing with Obamacare issues were not only disastrously
incompetent and also did not correspond to his election promises. And that was noted.
He promised to "drain the swamp" but instead he became a part of the swamp himself.
Politically he is Obama II -- a Republican version of Obama: another king of "bait and switch".
"Agent Orange" now wants to use jingoism to artificially propel hid approval ratings, but his
attack on Syrian airbase is not just a war crime. It is much worse. It was a blunder.
In other words large part of his supporters see that "the king is naked."
Actually analogy with Obama is deeper than the "king of bait and switch" characterization.
Like Obama before him, he played the role of a "tabula rasa" -- an empty board on which the
frustrated Americans could project their desire for the change ("change we can believe in"), but
who, in reality, was just another sell-out.
"... Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17 other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer – https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/ ..."
"... Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention) ..."
"... as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs, Americans don't care what happens around the world. ..."
"... And you are saying the general public in other countries do ..."
"... And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned by the MIC even when they vote isolationist. ..."
Ok, so how about just one rule: stop (bleep, bleep) intervening!
Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17
other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless
interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know
more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer –
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/
>>The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless
interventions abroad and subsequent destruction?
Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the
Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame
everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects
of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention)
as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs,
Americans don't care what happens around the world.
Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the
Establishment or amongst the people.
Funny, I care but for some reason I haven't been able to figure out
how to stop all those foreign interventions. Maybe if I just cared more,
I could stop it. I will try that. Or maybe I simply lack the immense
power required to confront and defeat a State intent on foreign
interventions.
Sort of like berating individual Joe slave for not ending slavery.
And you are saying the general public in other countries
do
care (assuming they aren't the ones being attacked)? The Brits and the
French in recent years have seemed just as enthusiastic about intervening
as we are. To me this is a lot more shocking than the complacency of my
fellow Americans–people who live behind two oceans and are perhaps
understandably uninterested in foreign affairs. This has always been true
as was seen in the runups to WW1 and WW2.
And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only
took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned
by the MIC even when they vote isolationist.
"... The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets). ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. ..."
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for
pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi
following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the
Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big
insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he
as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck
Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so
on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always
will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the
mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane
world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This
can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the
vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur
motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his
business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and
iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier
fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un
is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is
well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could
accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have
now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture,
curtains, lights, this is it night of nights "
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David
Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean
War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding
journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and
geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe.
American troops
experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a
chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground.
History repeats, rhymes whatever .
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the
Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence
Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his
name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment
allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to
the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it it's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete. What makes you
think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If
they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a
VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese). The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for
that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand
(and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There
is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians
and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents
– they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective
of the other – not from what the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150 k means
450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to
the Shinseki ratio.
"... Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists). ..."
"... "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position . ..."
"... maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few. ..."
"... In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone. ..."
"... The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. ..."
"... The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio. ..."
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon
camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
"Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child
by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered
for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included
on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without
bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next
to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete.
What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly
reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember
– they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese).
The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends
up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just
like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected
to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if
they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya
war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what
the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k
means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according
to the Shinseki ratio.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
"... As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed, somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other nations' interests for America's. ..."
"... "One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians," Mr. Trump said during a major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place." ..."
As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a
priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed,
somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary
Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging
heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other
nations' interests for America's.
"One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians,"
Mr. Trump said during a
major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians
suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The
world is a different place."
"We're a humanitarian nation," he continued, "but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions
will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We've made the Middle East more unstable and
chaotic than ever before."
The contrast between Mr. Trump and his predecessor could not be starker. In the early days
of his presidency, Mr. Obama made the case for America's moral responsibility to intervene militarily
on humanitarian grounds. "Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention
later," he said in
accepting
the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 .
Yet when Syria slipped into a deadly civil war, Mr. Obama focused more on the costs of intervention
than the risks of inaction. Even after Mr. Assad's forces killed hundreds in a poison gas attack
in August 2013, Mr. Obama did not carry out a threatened missile strike because, he said, he had
not gotten
Congress to sign off on it .
Mr. Trump's action, only 77 days into his term, hardly settles the question of when he might
intervene in future crises. He has not articulated criteria for humanitarian interventions and,
even if he did, it is not clear that he would stick to his standards any more than Mr. Obama did.
Firing dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria also deflects attention from Mr. Trump's
lengthening list of troubles at home, from the investigation of his campaign's murky ties with
Russia to his failed health care legislation.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration
to end the conflict on his terms.
The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts
said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.
The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued
a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat
airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.
The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate
on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air
space.
Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation
of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster,
whom Claudio threatened to arrest. According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions,
handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces. A so-called "good
behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule
requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."
"... The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture? ..."
"... "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It." ..."
"... Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this. ..."
"... With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. ..."
"... Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly. ..."
"... Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus. ..."
"... It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties. ..."
"... Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime ..."
"... In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate. ..."
"... "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined" ..."
"... My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market. ..."
"... That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful ..."
... Q: The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and
"reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the
result of disruption brought by technological change,
globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect
of rent-seeking and regulatory capture?
Acemoglu and
Robinson argued in Why
Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie
economic success (or lack of it)." Technological developments have
highlighted the immense power associated with controlling
information. The business of investigative reporting is in a
crisis. Corporations often play off governments, shopping
jurisdictions and making bargains. For capitalism to work, the
relevant institutions must work effectively and avoid excessive
rent extraction. The governance challenge of the global economy is
daunting.
RGC said...
"Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL
SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong
with Banking and What to Do about It."
[Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from
society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this.]
"Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and
Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack
of it)."
Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals
(although there was no any single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état.
From above. Much like Bolshevism.
Looks like it is more resilient then Marxism based economic systems and it demonstrated staying
power even after 2008 -- when the ideology itself was completely discredited and became a joke.
Neoliberalism survived the demise of neoliberal ideology and entered zombie stage. Much like
many sects with discredited predictions like the Second Coming.
Neoliberalism borrowed quite a lot from Marxism. Actually analogies with Marxism are too numerous
to list. But one is very important: neoliberalism replaced "Dictatorship of proletariat" with
the dictatorship of "free markets" and proletariat itself with so called "creative class".
With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive
sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And
this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
They also demonstrated the same ruthlessness in the best style of "end justifies means". Killed
are mainly "brown people" (is we do not count ten thousand Ukrainians)
In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." Gore Vidal once famously said that
the neoliberal economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." As
unforgettable Bush II said "I'm a free market guy. But I'm not gonna let this economy crater in
order to preserve the free market system" – George W. Bush, December 17, 2008, William Simon,
President Nixon's Treasury Secretary, once famously observed of those who preach free markets
typically are simultaneously rushing to the public treasury: "I watched with incredulity as businessmen
ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition
that has made this system so productive always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free
enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state.
Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their
immense concern for the public interest."
And neoliberalism uses the same repressive tactics including dominance in MSM and the control
of the university education to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites.
Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism
created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital
owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists.
They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly.
That fact the deification of markets is a "fools gold" was know from the Great Recession (and
Karl Polanyi famous book), but when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove
it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this
point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level
of solidarity with workers against capital owners). The new generation switched camps and allied
with capital owners against the working class.
Both treat the country the same way as bacteria treat a squirrel carcass.
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows,
so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people
make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making
bigger and riskier bets. They reckon-correctly, in most cases-that their political connections
will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.
As Paine noted neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous
and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA
with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful.
Among them are two key LA countries -- Brazil and Argentina. That happened despite that this
phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating
social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in
the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same.
Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by
slower rate of improvement of key social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income
population of LA countries [compared with the prior two decades ]
In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world
states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian
cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital
markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in
an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating
to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended,
responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential
sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.
As for the question "Why?" there might be several reasons.
Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism
still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They
do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus.
This is LA specific part. It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism
on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which
operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant
of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back
to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties.
Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating"
the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and
damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of
the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction
which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime.
My impression is that before the next oil crisis (defined as oil price crossing $150 mark or
so) attempts to displace financial oligarchy are bound to fail.
So, in some "mutated" form, like Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" ( aka neoliberalism without globalization,
limited to a single country) it will stay put.
In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized
on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate.
"Does this crisis signal the end of neoliberalism? My answer is that it depends what you
mean by neoliberalism. My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a
lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and
the free market.
That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that
neoliberal project has been fairly successful."
The Trump phenomenon shows that we urgently need an alternative to the obsolete capitalism
globinfo freexchange
It's not only the rapid technological progress, especially in the field of hyper-automation and
Artificial Intelligence, that makes capitalism unable to deliver a viable future to the societies.
It's also the fact that the dead-end it creates, produces false alternatives like Donald Trump.
With Trump administration
taken over by Goldman Sachs , nothing can surprise us, anymore. The fairy tale
of the 'anti-establishment' Trump who would supposedly fight for the interests of the forgotten -
by the system - Americans, was collapsed even before Trump election.
What's quite surprising, is how fast the new US president - buddy of the plutocrats, is offering
'earth and water' to the top 1% of the American society, as if they had not already enough at the
expense of the 99%. His recent 'achievement', was to sign for more deregulation in favor of the banking
mafia that ruined the economy in 2008, destroyed millions of working class Americans and sent waves
of financial destruction all over the world. Europe is still on its knees because of the neoliberal
destruction and cruel austerity.
Richard Wolff explains:
If you don't want the Trumps of this world to periodically show up and scare everybody, you've
got to do something about the basic system that produces the conditions that allow a Trump to get
to the position he now occupies.
We need a better politics than having two parties compete for the big corporations to love them,
two parties to proudly celebrate capitalism. Real politics needs an opposition, people who think
we can do better than capitalism, we ought to try, we ought to discuss it, and the people should
have a choice about that. Because if you don't give them that, they are gonna go from one extreme
to another, trying to find a way out of the status quo that is no longer acceptable.
I'm amazed that after half a century in which any politician had accepted the name 'Socialist'
attached to him or her, thereby committing, effectively, political suicide, Mr. Sanders has shown
us that the world has really changed. He could have that label, he could accept the label, he could
say he is proud of the label, and millions and millions of Americans said 'that's fine with us',
he gets our vote. We will not be the same nation going forward, because of that. It is now openly
possible to raise questions about capitalism, to talk about its shortcomings, to explore how we can
do better.
Indeed, as the blog
pointed before the latest US elections:
Bernie has the background and the ability to change the course of the US politics. He speaks straightly
about things buried by the establishment, as if they were absent. Wall Street corruption, growing
inequality, corporate funding of politicians by lobbies. He says that he will break the big banks.
He will provide free health and education for all the American people. Because of Sanders, Hillary
is forced to speak about these issues too. And subsequently, this starts to shape again a fundamental
ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans, which was nearly absent for decades.
But none of this would have come to surface if Bernie didn't have the support of the American
people. Despite that he came from nowhere, especially the young people mobilized and started to spread
his message using the alternative media. Despite that he speaks about Socialism, his popularity grows.
The establishment starts to sense the first cracks in its solid structure. But Bernie is only the
appropriate tool. It's the American people who make the difference.
No matter who will be elected eventually, the final countdown for the demolition of this brutal
system has already started and it's irreversible. The question now is not if, but when it will collapse,
and what this collapse will bring the day after. In any case, if people are truly united, they have
nothing to fear.
So, what kind of system do we need to replace the obsolete capitalism? Do we need a kind of Democratic
Socialism that would be certainly more compatible to the rapid technological progress? Write your
thoughts and ideas in the comments below.
It's not all bad news for the President, but it is a warning to be heeded. Here in
Michigan, Trump voters, campaigners, and low-level donors expressed concern to
this Breitbart News correspondent on the recent change in his direction - citing
the travel ban, border control, and the power of his relatives in his
administration as key areas of concern.
"We're watching a man who can take action every single day," Jeff, a
long-standing Trump supporter, told me. He went on:
He doesn't need to go to Congress. He can take action. We're watching him
carefully. We're talking about people who have lives to live. Grandchildren to
take care of. And we're watching actions day to day and they're falling flat.
They're receding from why we put the man there, and it is extremely, it is more
than stressful. We're keeping track, we're watching it. We do not want to hear
about family members having an impact. We voted. We have high expectations for
impact.
... ... ...
While these names were not first to the lips of the dozens I spoke to in Michigan
- which I am not claiming is science - they did stress their growing disaffection
with the executive branch.
"I feel like it's gone so far now the wrong way that
it's going to take something magnificent on his part to get people back. We're
fish that are off the hook right now. He only has one small chance to get us
hooked again," Penny, a middle-aged lady from Sterling Heights, told me, adding:
Jared and Ivanka were not on the ballot. I did not vote for them, nor would
I if given the opportunity. There is a reason we have anti-nepotism rules. The
fact that they were aided by the odious Jamie Gorelick in circumventing those
rules pours salt in our wounds. Now it looks like the counterbalance of Bannon
and Kellyanne is being marginalized. President Trump seems to have forgotten
the loyal supporters who have been behind him since the early primary days. I
feel so very betrayed.
...if the first 100 days - especially the second half of that time period - are anything to go
by - the Donald will have some serious explaining to do in about three years time.
And I'd argue that there is not one single trump voter in the whole world that voted for his economic
policies.
And that this populism bs has been swallowed by way, way too many people.
It wasn't the bringing back the lost jobs in coal country(which even the single most stupid
human being in West Va knew was a crock), it was that the coal jobs lost in West Va were taken
by people of color and socialistically minded dems.
Josh Marshall isn't a Susan Sarandon/Ralph Nader type:
"We hear people constantly saying 'Nothing will change his supporters' minds. They're with
him no matter what.' First of all this is enervating defeatism which is demoralizing and loserish.
But it also misses the point. It is factually wrong. For the supporters those people have in mind,
they're right. They're true believers, authoritarians who are energized by Trump's destructive
behavior. But there are not that many of those people. A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for
him in spite of their dislike. Those people can be carved away. But Democrats will regain power
by winning it in what amount to our 21st century internal American borderlands, not in the big
cities or rural areas mainly but in between. So what's happening now to lay that groundwork for
2018?"
"And I'd argue that there is not one single trump voter in the whole world that voted for his
economic policies. "
Looks like Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public
could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.
"... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
"... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
"... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons
who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.
After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with
Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate
war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr
Gage Skidmore)
Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in
a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for
his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk
missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although
no serious investigation was
even conducted).
Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with
emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully
played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians,
four of whom were children.
However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the
Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration
refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.
"But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian
people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the
Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's
policies over the past six years."
Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different
place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The
bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical
weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children.
It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."
A Seasoned Propagandist
Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never
been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013,
in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since
then, the evidence has indicated
that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)
Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)
But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out
that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted
logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that
Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."
But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights
onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.
"Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years
panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business.
Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S.
allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.
"Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact
of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million
Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."
Trump's Probation
Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would
have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would
have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for
their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.
President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013.
(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.
Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed
at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's
adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power
to defend its interests and the world order.
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile
strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the
stomach for confrontation."
And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:
"Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and
military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama
rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective
arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war,
and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt
it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to
escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the
course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."
On His Knees
To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees,
they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention
in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).
Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy
in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some
sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.
As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war
in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's "
A Family Business of Perpetual
War ."]
Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating
Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists,
who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy
promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")
In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological
operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their
angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election
became the argument of choice.
Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile,
Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional
Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.
However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from
any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached
such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.
Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon
favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war
in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning
point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.
It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia
for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the
service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Blink, and you missed Trump's blistering, seamless transformation into a mainstream politician.
In the span of just a few hours, President Trump flipped to new positions on several core policy
issues, backing off on no less than five repeated campaign promises.
In a WSJ interview and a subsequent press conference, Trump either shifted or completely reversed
positions on a number of foreign and economic policy decisions, including the fate of the US Dollar,
how to handle China and the future of the chair of the Federal Reserve.
Goodbye strong dollar and high interest rates
In an announcement that
rocked currency markets ,
Trump told the WSJ that the U.S. dollar "is getting too strong" and he would prefer the Federal
Reserve keep interest rates low. "I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you,"
Mr. Trump said. "I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because
people have confidence in me . But that's hurting-that will hurt ultimately," he added. "Look, there's
some very good things about a strong dollar, but usually speaking the best thing about it is that
it sounds good."
Trump then said the one thing that every other currency manipulator realizes all too well: "It's
very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their
currency. "
During his campaign Trump had repeatedly said that a "strong dollar" policy would be beneficial
for the US economy, despite our
repeat warnings that he will inevitably reverse on this, especially if and when the "Goldman"
circle of advisors starts providing macroconomic advice.
It is unclear if the shift in Trump's policy will mean that US economic data will now "mysteriously"
begin to deteriorate to justify not only his request for a weaker dollar, but to also hit the breaks
on Yellen's plans for further rate hikes over the next 2-3 years. In any case, the debate over the
Fed's balance sheet unwind, and the trajectory of Fed hikes, is now on indefinite hiatus.
The biggest loser here, again, are America's savers who may have been hoping that their bank deposits
will finally earn some interest.
As for the most notable outcome from this Trump statement, is that it counters his "desire" for
a weaker dollar with the Fed's tightening bias. Will fireworks fly as Trump realizes that Yellen's
actions are prompting the strong dollar? Stay tuned for what may be the most entertaining clash yet:
Trump vs Yellen.
* * *
Labeling China a currency manipulator
Trump also told the Wall Street Journal that China is not artificially deflating the value of
its currency, a big change after he repeatedly pledged during his campaign to label the country a
currency manipulator.
"They're not currency manipulators," the president said, adding that China hasn't been manipulating
its currency for months, and that he feared derailing U.S.-China talks to crack down on North Korea.
Trump routinely criticized President Obama for not labeling China a currency manipulator, and promised
during the campaign to do so on day one of his administration.
Trump's declaration also means that Peter Navarro may as well pack his bags, as the Goldman economic
advisory team has now won its contest with the "Bannon nationalist" circle.
* * *
Yellen's future
Trump also told the Journal he'd consider re-nominating Yellen to chair the Fed's board of governors,
after attacking her during his campaign." I like her. I respect her," Trump said, "It's very early."
Trump called Yellen "obviously political" in September and accused her of keeping interest rates
low to boost the stock market and make Obama look good. "As soon as [rates] go up, your stock market
is going to go way down, most likely," Trump said. "Or possibly."
* * *
Export-Import Bank
Trump also voiced support behind the Export-Import Bank, which helps subsidize some U.S. exports,
after opposing it during the campaign.
"It turns out that, first of all, lots of small companies are really helped, the vendor companies,"
Trump told the Journal. "Instinctively, you would say, 'Isn't that a ridiculous thing,' but actually,
it's a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money."
Trump's support will anger conservative opponents of the bank, who say it enables crony capitalism.
* * *
NATO
Finally, Trump said NATO is "no longer obsolete" during a Wednesday press conference with NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, backtracking on his past criticism of the alliance. During the
campaign, he frequently called the organization "obsolete," saying did little to crack down on terrorism
and that its other members don't pay their "fair share."
"I said it was obsolete. It is no longer obsolete," the president said Wednesday.
Trump has gradually become more supportive of NATO after it ramped up efforts to increase U.S.
and European intelligence sharing regarding terrorism. Trump still insisted that NATO allies "meet
their financial obligations and pay what they owe." He said he discussed with Stoltenberg his desire
that allies put 2 percent of their gross domestic products into defense by 2024.
* * *
Add to this Trump's first, most prominent reversal, the launch of air strikes on Syria last Friday
after repeatedly bashing Obama for even considering that, and Trump's transformation into a mainstream
politician now appears complete.
The important thing to know about him is he wants whoever he is talking to at the moment to
like him, and will say anything to make it so. He is the ultimate yes man.
They were pretend war crimes Except for the 8? casualties. Even the best military operations
have casualties.
Its pretty hard to loose 57 cruise missiles and not hit something.
( Big hint. The captain of the missile ship did not refuse his orders because they were unconstitutional)
Trumformers. More than meets the eye.
Posit; Slavering chickenhawks outdo each other in secret meetings because of penis envy. They
rely on Mr.T. to hold them in check. And then he let's go of their leads. Oops.
Ever seen two dogs arguing through the safety of a fence, and then they get to the open gate?
I think either that happened or Trump is the ultimate Yes man.
"... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
"... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
"... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons
who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.
After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with
Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate
war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr
Gage Skidmore)
Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in
a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for
his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk
missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although
no serious investigation was
even conducted).
Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with
emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully
played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians,
four of whom were children.
However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the
Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration
refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.
"But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian
people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the
Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's
policies over the past six years."
Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different
place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The
bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical
weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children.
It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."
A Seasoned Propagandist
Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never
been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013,
in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since
then, the evidence has indicated
that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)
Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)
But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out
that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted
logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that
Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."
But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights
onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.
"Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years
panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business.
Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S.
allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.
"Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact
of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million
Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."
Trump's Probation
Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would
have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would
have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for
their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.
President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013.
(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.
Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed
at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's
adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power
to defend its interests and the world order.
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile
strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the
stomach for confrontation."
And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:
"Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and
military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama
rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective
arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war,
and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt
it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to
escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the
course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."
On His Knees
To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees,
they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention
in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).
Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy
in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some
sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.
As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war
in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's "
A Family Business of Perpetual
War ."]
Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating
Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists,
who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy
promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")
In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological
operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their
angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election
became the argument of choice.
Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile,
Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional
Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.
However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from
any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached
such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.
Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon
favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war
in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning
point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.
It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia
for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the
service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
On April 4th, residents of the rebel-held city Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province, Syria were attacked
with chemical weapons. Trump quickly seized on this Syrian catastrophe as an opportunity.
Prior to any kind of formal investigation,
The White House determined that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack, with Trump
flip-flopping on a statement made less than a week beforehand by his Ambassador to the UN Nikki
Haley
who stated that Assad's removal was "no longer a priority".
On April 5th Trump
removed Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council (NSC). Bannon championed Trump's "America
First" doctrine and was opposed to military action in Syria. Further, the move appeased the liberal
establishment that was critical of Bannon's fascistic "alt-right" and White supremacist associations.
Thus, after neutralizing opposition from within (Steve Bannon) and instilling the appropriate
local propaganda (
Sean Spicer ), a strike on Syria would align Trump with establishment
conservatives and
neoliberals , as well as the corporate media.
But what did Syria's immediate neighbor and America's closest ally in the Middle East – Israel
– think of a strike so close to home? Israeli support is fundamental to the survival, success and
popularity of American Presidents, and Trump knows this well.
"Wall to wall support in Israel for US attack on Syria"
claimed Gil Hoffman of the Jerusalem Post in a recent piece that laid out a seemingly rare case
of political agreement in Israel, whereby Netanyahu's government coalition and its opposition were
unanimous in their support of Donald Trump's decision to bomb Assad's army. From Zehava Gal-On (Meretz),
Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union) and Tzipi Livni (Zionist Union) to Oren Hazan (Likud), Tzipi Hotovely
(Likud) and Moti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) the Israeli political spectrum was presented as lock, stock
and barrel behind Donald Trump.
But does such a consensus really exist throughout the entirety of the Israeli political spectrum?
A closer look at the article reveals that by "wall to wall support" the right-wing Jerusalem Post
only considered Zionist parties, while completely ignoring the Arab Joint List, no small party at
13 mandates making it the third largest in the Israeli Knesset.
In contrast to the uniform Zionist support for Trump, the subtleties of opinion and disagreements
within the Joint List faithfully echo the long-lasting and ongoing worldwide debate over the war
in Syria. Thus, the omission of The Joint List from the Jerusalem Post's pro-Trump propaganda piece
was clearly not an oversight, but meant to convey unanimous Israeli support for Trump's aggressive
tactics, while disregarding those who do not serve the expansionist Zionist objectives. After all,
Assad represents a united Syria to which the occupied Golan Heights can theoretically be returned
as a condition for peace. Further, Assad serves as a key ally of Israel's mortal enemy Iran and a
channel from which the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah receives weapons from its Iranian benefactors.
Clearly, Trump's gambit worked.
For the price of 59 Tomahawk missiles , he managed to align himself with the DC establishment,
recapture corporate media, distance himself from the controversial and fascistic Bannon and as an
added bonus, increase his popularity among American Jews and Israelis. His move threw egg in the
face at those who underestimated his prowess and opportunism.
Yoav Litvin is a doctor of psychology / behavioral neuroscience , a documentary photographer
and writer living in New York City .
This article was originally published at
Mondoweiss
.
The first act of Trump "make war great again"; lend the US
navy to al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria, now calling themselves
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)). Bin Laden is pleased!
US
media propaganda aiding and abetting the terrorists, imagine
if someone called the Taliban "beleaguered rebel factions".
Idlib province "one of the last strongholds for
beleaguered rebel factions...." Bilious malarkey, Washington
Post full mini truth speak. The Post supports beleaguered
remnants of al Qaeda not plain sounding 'rebel factions'!
We all love cheap gasoline/heating oil and pandering to
the religious nobility of the Gulf Cooperation Council
(invited to G7 to represent al Qaeda) is also good for wall
st. I get it that there is no risk 8% profit margins from
squandering 4% of GDP on war without end Amen!
I get that Ivanka wept about the terrorists' human shield
dead kids in Syria was high morality especially while we sell
cluster bombs for the religious nobility of the Gulf
Cooperation Council to do it in and around Sanaa. I get it
that remorselessly taking Mosul apart cinderblock by
cinderblock must be kept out of the news cycle. I get that
needing a "moderate jihadi" brigade and 400 US sorties to not
take out 200 ISIS fighters is embarrassing.
I get that you don't question the Trump "make war great
again" version of yellow cake. I get Ivanka was over
emotional. It is so easy!
Who relies on the Trump "make war great again" press? How
come you have to go to EU sources to find out that Khan
Sheikhoun is the place where the false flag was staged, not
"NW Syria"? It is south of Aleppo, on the main road to
Damascus! How come US press calls them "activists" while a
little research if you knew the name of the town and the
"activists" are al Nusra, which does beheadings
as efficiently as ISIS but is a lot closer to the Arabian
Peninsula Wahabbists working for bin Laden mujahedeen trust.
Sticking to Trump "make war great again" press you can ignore
the fact the "moderate" jihadis, US are training, can do
nothing without massive US support. If Syria were open to be
picked it is al Nusra and ISIS will come out on top! Then
you have the situation that Iraq fell into with no Shiites to
balance the Sunni crazies.
Why not try nation building in Korea? There Trump "make war
great again" might secure our South Korean manufactures after
experiencing some nuclear detonations ..
All of the above is why the G7 "failed" aside from Johnson
the G5 are not conned into agreeing to confront Putin, the
Trump "make war great again" case does not sell if you have a
few pieces of evidence and can reason.
"The first act of Trump "make war great again"; lend the US
navy to Al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria, now calling themselves
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)). Bin Laden is pleased!"
No this
is the second act. The first was putting hawks in senior
position and betraying Flynn and now Bannon, who was
definitely against the strikes.
"Sticking to Trump "make war great again" press you can
ignore the fact the 'moderate' jihadis... "
What amaze me most is not even the level of jingoism, but
the level of intellectual impotence of the MSM.
Comment section in Guardian has intellectual level far
superior to them. Please look at
Most US MSM articles on the event are just KSA-style
unconditional praising of the king by court sycophants and
swiping under the carpet the fact the slogan "Make America
Great Again" was now replaced with "Make Islamic Emirate
Under Sharia Law Great Again". what regime change will lead
in Syria is the second KSA with Sharia Law, beheadings and
women treated as a cattle. May be even slave trade, as now is
common practice in Libya.
Geopolitically is a serious incident and its escalation
would definitely get us where we should be if Hillary had
been elected. In other words the difference between Trump and
Hillary in foreign policy is now minimal and can be
eliminated completely with a sex change operation.
which does not take into account the fact that Russia
since 1991 was not able to recover economically and the last
thing it needs is a confrontation with crumbling but still
powerful US neoliberal empire. Looks like Putin has blinked –
he met with Tillerson. So without any strong allies it and
facing the armada of major Western States led by the USA and
its satellites including Turkey, KSa and Jordan, it is now on
the ropes. Especially taking into account that Chinese
definitely want to sit this out as a neutral observer of how
"two tigers fight in the valley".
It is almost funny, if it was not so tragic, that
everybody dutifully imitates "search of a black cat in the
dark room knowing that there is no cat in the room" Published
"intelligence report" remind Italian "yellow cake"
fabrication so strongly that it looks like history does
repeat, not only rhymes as Mark Twain supposed. As farce.
As a side note, I doubt that Trump now decide anything. He
already folded and is now just a figurehead, a marionette.
Actually I am thinking that getting his family into this
complex mess was a big mistake. He is 70, So, at least
theoretically, he can "die for the cause" like in good old
times" cleaning the swamp. Divorcing Melanie would be a good
move to free hands for a fight with neocons. Even if this
means to die in the fight like a real patriot. But with
family "in" the situation became completely self-defeating.
So what is left for him now are self-embarrassing remarks
during interviews. Everything else is probably already done
by "other people".
"... Whoever observed Trump's moves carefully would have noticed it. His talks of safe-zones with the Saudis, his disinterest of meeting Putin, despite the latter one voicing his availability several times. Instead changing plans to meet Merkel in March already, when intially the plan was not to meet her until July. Trump is a fraud, he did what he had to to get elected and for many it's a rude awakening to realize that they'd been played and that the deep state is still in absolute control. The question will be where will those voters go next, now that neither Republican nor Democratic party offers any opportunity out of this quandrum. ..."
On April 4 2017 in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun, a city controlled by
western-backed terrorists, chemical weapons killed more than eighty civilians.
Immediately, local and foreign sources (the White Helmets and Syrian Observatory,
respectively, dubiously linked to Al Qaeda groups) blamed the Syrian Arab Army, accusing
them of employing chemical agents. In the following forty-eight hours, the mainstream
media flooded print media and the airwaves with information that alleged that Assad used
chemical weapons. As is known,
it is not the first time that the legitimate
government of Syria has been accused of attacking its own people with weapons of mass
destruction.
In all similar events in the past, it has been later
discovered that the chemical agents in question were used by the Al Nusra Front and Al
Qaeda terrorists.
In 2013, Obama tacitly rejected the argument that the Syrian
Army used chemical weapons in Ghouta, deciding not to succumb to internal pressure to
bomb Syria in response. Donald Trump required little confirmation before taking the
initiative to cross the red line, openly attacking the Syrian army, even though his same
intelligence community strongly doubted that the chemical attack took place according to
the narrative advanced by the media.
There are several hypotheses regarding what may have happened in Khan
Shaykhun.
The first one points to a false flag by rebels and terrorists
supported by Israeli, British, Saudi and Qatari intelligence. Alternatively, it could
have simply been an accident. Assad's forces could have hit a terrorist weapons cache
without knowing that it was dedicated to the production and storage of chemical weapons.
Another theory offers that foreign intelligence agents may have provided accurate
information to the terrorists in Khan Shaykhun about what buildings were going to be
targeted by Assad's air force, thereby allowing them to move chemical weapons into the
targeted locations in order to bring about a civilian massacre.
Whatever the case may be, it is unthinkable that Assad and the Syrian army would use
chemical agents against their own civilians.
There is no rational reason for
them to use such weapons which do not guarantee any tactical advantage and which,
besides, would incite an obvious, vehement reaction from the international community
-- a counterproductive move from any way you look at it. This is not to mention that two
days before the accident (?), Trump and Tillerson had publicly opened up to Assad,
broaching a Syrian future with the president still in office. Once again, the use of
chemical weapons proved to be of no tactical gain, spelling full-blown political
suicide. From whatever perspective one observes the incident; an intentional chemical
attack by Syrian forces is not credible and should be therefore ruled out. Furthermore,
Russia saw its request for an independent investigation in the Khan Shaykhun chemical
incident blocked by almost all nations belonging to the UN council, with the exception
of Syria, Bolivia, China and Russia. What do the US and its allies have to hide? We all
know the answer to that.
An important factor to consider in order to understand the events surrounding the
incident with chemical gases concerns the immediate American response.
The
bombardment with cruise missile, which caused a dozen deaths and some slight damage to
Shayrat Air Base, needed at least a couple of months of preparation. This consideration
helps clarify the scope of the chemical attack along with the attendant rationale and
motivations.
Notably, over the past two months, Trump has received all kinds of pressure
to continue the neocon-inspired aggression against Syria.
The main cheerleaders
of this attack certainly fall into that category of players that includes the
intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, neoconservatives, the Saudis,
the Israelis, the Turks and the Qataris. It is not unthinkable that the chemical attack
was an act needed in order to allow a US military response. One must not neglect to
consider the very positive outcome of the meeting between Trump and the Saudi prince,
the latter of whom is a major supporter of aggression against Syria. The summit between
the King of Jordan and the American president the day after the events in Khan Shaykhun
ought to be viewed in the same light. At the same time, other events look more than
suspicious in terms of timing and motives, such as the permanent exclusion of Trump
adviser Steve Bannon in favor of General H. R. McMaster (appointed by Trump). McMaster
is a protégé of General Petraeus, a leading exponent of the interests of the
neoconservatives. This is not to mention the exclusion of Flynn a month ago, another
person who for years has advised against aggression against Syria, mainly thinking of
the consequences that such a move would entail at the international level.
Much ambiguity also remains when one considers the absence of members of the
American intelligence community in the war room during the bombing of Syria on April 6.
Rumors suggest that these American agencies would have recommended that Trump
not act on the basis of partial or false information regarding the chemical attack in
Khan Shaykhun. Trump, contrary to what he stated during the presidential campaign, has
dismissed the advice of his intelligence community, preferring instead to act
unilaterally under pressure from McMaster and other neocons in the administration.
The bombardment, involving the use of 59 cruise missiles (23 hit the base, others
went missing, according to the Russian ministry of defense), caused little damage to the
Shayrat Air Base, thanks to the prompt evacuation of Syrian personnel, and no injuries
were reported amongst the Russian contingent. The Pentagon claims to have warned the
Russians of their intentions, but it is more likely that there were no alternatives, and
that this act was mostly political and at no cost. Rather than reading this as a
hypothetical US courtesy to the Russians (and the Syrians, because Moscow immediately
warned Damascus), we must consider that a few seconds after the launch of the first
cruise missile by the two destroyers in the Mediterranean, Russian forces in the area
were already fully aware of the path and destination of the missiles, thereby alerting
Damascus
. It is also possible that the generals close to Trump advised him to
alert Moscow because of the danger of a Russian reaction if hit by US missiles.
Some doubts still remain as to the intentions and purpose of the attacks.
In
recent days, a hypothesis has emerged implying some sort of connivance between Russia
and the United States in these attacks, apparently staged to appease the
interventionists of the US deep state.
There is no evidence to support this
hypothesis, and the relatively limited damage to the Shayrat military airport may rest
either with the high defense capabilities of the Syrian and Russians, or to the marked
inefficiency of Raytheon's cruise missiles, rather than any purposeful intention to do
limited damage. In coming days, with more information available, it will be important to
analyze what exactly happened to the cruise missiles that did not hit their target. As
many know, it is taboo in the United States to criticize the military-industry complex,
given the importance and influence it enjoys. In this sense, it is no surprise that in
the United States, the press has been talking about the complete success of the attack,
with 58 out of 59 missiles apparently being advertised as hitting their targets.
For Trump it may well be the beginning of the end.
The intention may have been to make a once-off attack to appease the deep state,
lowering in the process the heat stemming from Russiagate, in order to allow for the
implementation of national policies in line with the proclaimed America-First doctrine
that has thus far been sabotaged by opponents and detractors. These same detractors now
applaud Trump for what they see as his first presidential act, which involves killing
civilians with missiles.
What Trump does not appear to understand is that he has opened up a Pandora's
Box that implicitly encourages foreign intelligence and terrorists in Syria to rely on
American help by simply playing the chemical-gas-attack card.
Trump seems
unaware that he is now under the complete control of the media, the intelligence
agencies, Al Qaeda, and the neocons, who are all the time working towards the
involvement of the United States in ever more wars, such as with the one in Syria. Trump
has intentionally sold out to the deep state in the hope of saving his presidency.
However, in so doing, he is doomed to becoming a puppet of the deep state. Now let us
speculate for a moment about what may happen in the coming weeks.
In response to US aggression, Russia, Syria and Iran will increase
cooperation against terrorists in Syria without any further cooperation with the United
States.
In this regard, we have already seen the suspension of channels of
communication between Russia and the United States. The most likely reason for this is
to avoid revealing to the United States the whereabouts of Russian troops in Syria. This
hopefully causes huge concern for Washington, as the next American attack on Syria may
impact on Russian troops. Regardless, it now seems clear that in the case of a new
attack on Syria, there will be a firm and proportionate response from Moscow that could
even lead to the sinking of the ships that launched the cruise missiles. It constitutes
a dangerous escalation that could involve nuclear superpowers. Trump is probably betting
that Moscow, in the case of another attack on Syria, would not dare attack American
ships. Unfortunately for Trump and the rest of the world, his calculations are dead
wrong, pushing the world to the brink of disaster in the event of another American
bombardment of Syria. If Russia sinks American naval ships, and Trump does not respond,
he is done. If he responds, then the world is done. Let us hope that the US does not do
stupid shit (an Obama quote).
In case al Qaeda once again uses chemical weapons, Trump will be requested to
answer with force, as he has already done. If he refuses to do so, he will be
immediately pilloried as Obama was in 2013, thereby committing political suicide.
Trump has already lost his most loyal supporters, who had voted for him to stop US
military adventures abroad. By deciding to bomb Syria, he has opened the door to either
an early termination of his presidency or for a large-scale conflict. Whatever the case
may be, the United States begins a new phase of conflict in the Middle East, in direct
contrast to the claims made by Trump throughout the presidential campaign. It represents
a 180-degree reversal in policy that reveals the real intentions of the American
presidency, namely continuing the preservation of the American unipolar world, in spite
of lacking the necessary operational and military capabilities.
After all,
Obama resisted for six years the pressure to bomb Syria coming from the extremist wing
of the deep state. Trump took only eighty days to voluntarily go along with plans to
attack Syria. Whatever the hidden truth of these two events, it is clear that from now
on that nothing will be as before.
It works both ways. Either they get away with it and move on while
benefitting from the propaganda, or they get "caught" in the American
mind, dump Trump, and get neocon Pence in his place. What will not be
discussed is that the neocons and their allies likely arranged the
incident.
Russians have already called it on future chemical attacks which
may actually make them hesitate on another false flag. This.is all
about "strategery".
If he's that fucking stupid so as to be lured into a trap, then he
deserves all that he gets. He promised us our government back and all he
has achieved is more of the same.
I liked Trump until he began bombing Syria.
And Yemen via Saudi proxy. And Iraq.
Trump betrayed me. I can't stand to hear his voice,
or even look at him.
Whoever observed Trump's moves carefully would have noticed it. His talks of
safe-zones with the Saudis, his disinterest of meeting Putin, despite the
latter one voicing his availability several times. Instead changing plans to
meet Merkel in March already, when intially the plan was not to meet her until
July.
Trump is a fraud, he did what he had to to get elected and for many it's a rude
awakening to realize that they'd been played and that the deep state is still
in absolute control. The question will be where will those voters go next, now
that neither Republican nor Democratic party offers any opportunity out of this
quandrum.
But before we get there, we need to survive his presidency, not
such an easy task, considering his latest steps.
He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President
Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister
Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.
"... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
"... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
"... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
"... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
"... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
quote
----
Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin
of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve.
I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing
crooked Hillary."
Thanks b, Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity
be brought back to town?
Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies
of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets.
Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will
not be restored.
I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a
huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before
he rescued me:
In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST
Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know
Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I
was facing crooked Hillary."
He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."
~ ~ ~ ~
My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family
are always First.
Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:
Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer,
and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary,
but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations,"
they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely
due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump
was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon,
the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind
and responsible for his success.
I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe
that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day.
So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks
as his "inside" advisors.
With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.
"How can sanity be brought to town?"
Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had
some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change.
Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.
Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant
percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the
tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."
Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and
ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting
the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss -
because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George
Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening.
I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over
the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately.
It's pretty appalling.
How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog
help us all.
"... In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria." ..."
"... Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly" - again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought." ..."
The biggest problem with Trump is his total dishonesty and the ease with which he lies with complete abandon to suit his Fake
News Spin
Here he fails to endorse Bannon, but hasn't tossed him from the WH and says he likes "Steve", the US won't go into Syria once
again giving Assad and Putin a win in Syria, that the US and Russia are at odds, calls the Iran Nuclear Deal the worst deal ever
declaring "the mess he inherited worse than he thought", yet has done nothing to help Tillerson in Moscow or sent a message to
Iran's government.
Trump is a fraud as president and human being, imo. The GOP deserves every day he's president.
"Trump declines to endorse Bannon, says U.S. 'not going into Syria'"
By Mike Murphy, Editor...Apr 11, 2017...11:00 p.m. ET
"President Donald Trump declined to give top adviser Steve Bannon a vote of confidence during a New York Post interview published
Tuesday, in which he also said the U.S. was not headed toward a ground war in Syria.
There have been reports of discord among Trump's top White House advisers, and rumors that controversial chief strategist Bannon
may be on the way out. Last week, Bannon and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were reportedly told to iron out their differences.
When asked Monday by Post columnist Michael Goodwin if he still had confidence in Bannon, Trump didn't exactly give a ringing
endorsement: "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten
all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change
strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."
"Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will," Trump said.
In the same interview, Trump told Goodwin that, despite last week's airstrike, U.S. policy toward Syria has not changed. "We're
not going into Syria," Trump said. "Our policy is the same - it hasn't changed. We're not going into Syria."
Trump also acknowledged a growing rift with Russia - "We're not exactly on the same wavelength with Russia, to put it mildly"
- again called the nuclear deal with Iran "the single worst deal ever," and said of the worsening nuclear situation with North
Korea: "I knew I was left a mess, but it's worse than I thought."
He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President
Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister
Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.
"... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
"... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
"... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
"... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
"... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
"... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
"... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
"... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
"... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
"... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far,
it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been
the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).
This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental
state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability
to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to
the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is
not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to
protect Syria against Daesh.
If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have
Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands
that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations
which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.
So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means
as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only
works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.
And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind
also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs
to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That
is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but
the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to
be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress
in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.
I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere
near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very
energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and
Russia in record time.
So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely
terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda,
it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify
the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.
What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China,
the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction
operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese
either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?
Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear
wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group?
Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very
prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White
House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not
be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will
fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences
between the Americans and the Russians
The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans
are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate
the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the
West as a sign of weakness.
This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting
and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated
with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems.
As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing
campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world"
as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome
their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now,
in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians
do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify
a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear
that the entire planet already knows the truth!
There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real
Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!
Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export
model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included
thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might
be changing.
Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first
use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had
nuclear underwater missiles
since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European
are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes
to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the
ECHELON /
FIVE EYES gang. Russia has
plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran
has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally
unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If
there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in
and tell the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope,
and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting
each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that
Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do
something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes
President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they
are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump?
I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
The technical analysis was great, but it's the psychological analysis which explains the danger the
world faces. As in Rome's latter stages, the ruling class is dominated by sociopaths. I have the
feeling that many in power have the mindset they will either control the world or destroy it rather
than compromise.
The people in America generally don't see this whether the reason is apathy, denial, or simply
exposure to years of propaganda.
"... Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well. ..."
"... Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/ ..."
"... Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington. ..."
"... Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas. ..."
Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the
Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:
Bolivia: a profile in courage
And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that
the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.
Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence
you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the
European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that?
Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well.
Bolivia clearly condemned the strikes. Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United
States' missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations,
Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump's decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which
he described as being "an extremely serious violation of international law."
Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From
its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington.
Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against
sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread
fake news. Like a pack of hyenas.
US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'
by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017
Print This | Share This
With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration
officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House
saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national
interest."
Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US
attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an
accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.
Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against
Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria
is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.
That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria
designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes
against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense
will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.
Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting
that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government,
and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.
In an interview that aired on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that Mr.
Putin was partly to blame for the conflict in Syria and denounced him for backing President
Bashar al-Assad, whom he called an "animal." Later at the White House, Mr. Trump said that Russia
had likely known in advance of the Syrian government's plan to unleash a nerve agent against its
own people, and asserted that the United States' relations with Moscow were at an "all-time low."
... ... ...
Further punctuating the Syria dispute, Russia on Wednesday vetoed a
Western-backed resolution at the United Nations Security Council that condemned the chemical
weapons attack.
... But in a possible sign of Russia's isolation on the chemical
weapons issue, China, the permanent member that usually votes with Russia on Syria resolutions,
abstained.
The vote came the day after Mr. Trump spoke by phone to President Xi
Jinping of China, whom he hosted last week at a summit at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach,
Fla. White House officials said they credited the relationship between the two leaders that was
forged during the visit, and the conversation Tuesday evening, with helping to influence China's
vote
... ... ....
"I really think there's going to be a lot of pressure on Russia to make sure that peace
happens, because frankly, if Russia didn't go in and back this animal, we wouldn't have a problem
right now," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to Mr. Assad.
"Putin is backing a person that's truly an evil person, and I think it's very bad for Russia. I
think it's very bad for mankind. It's very bad for this world."
Later, after a meeting at the White House with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general,
Mr. Trump went out of his way to praise the military institution, which he called a "great
alliance," and to express disappointment with Russia.
... ... ...
Amid the rift with Russia, Mr. Trump made a striking reversal on NATO, saying the alliance had
transformed into an effective one since he took office.
"I said it was obsolete; it's no longer obsolete," Mr. Trump said, standing beside Mr.
Stoltenberg.
Mr. Trump attributed his change of heart to unspecified transformations within NATO, which he
said were a direct response to criticism he had leveled that the alliance was not doing enough to
combat terrorism.
...
Trump administration had supported the admission of
Montenegro
into NATO this week, in part to counter the influence of Russia in the small
Balkan nation. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official cited "credible reports" that
Moscow had backed a plot for a violent Election Day attack there last fall.
Mr. Trump on Tuesday signed the paperwork allowing Montenegro to
enter NATO, two weeks after the Senate approved the move in a March 28 vote.
Trump came into office touting his "America First agenda," disdaining NATO, and asking "Why is
it a bad thing to get along with Russia?" He told us he abjured "regime change" and held up Libya
as an example of bad policy. Now he's turned on a dime, bombing Syria, and welcoming tiny (and troubled)
Montenegro into NATO. His intelligence agencies are even
accusing Russia of having advance knowledge of the alleged chemical attack in Syria (although
the White House
disputed that after it got out). And all this in the first one hundred days!
How did this happen? It's easy to explain, once you understand that there is no such thing as
foreign policy: all policy is domestic.
That's the core principle at the heart of
what I call "libertarian realism," the overarching theory – if such a grandiose term can be applied
to what is simply common sense – that explains what is happening on the world stage at any particular
moment. And there is no better confirmation of this principle than
the recent statement
by Eric Trump, the President's son, who said: "If there was anything that Syria [strike] did,
it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie."
Oh yes, and Ivanka was "heartbroken" – and so it was incumbent upon the President to change course,
break a major campaign promise, and declare via his Secretary of State that "
Assad must go ."
Got it.
Trump's Syrian turnabout is clearly a response to the coordinated attack launched on his presidency
by the combined efforts of the Deep State, the media, the Democrats, and the McCain-Graham-neocon
wing of the GOP – a campaign that still might destroy him, despite his capitulation to the War Party.
Vladimir Putin has
likened the current Syria imbroglio to what happened in Iraq, with claims of "weapons of mass
destruction" and a war fought on the basis of false intelligence, but there is one major difference:
this time, the bombing came first, with the "evidence" an afterthought. You'll recall that in the
run up to the invasion of Iraq there was an extended and quite elaborate propaganda campaign designed
to make the case for war. Now, however, that process has been reversed: bombing first, "evidence"
later.
Speaking of which, Bloomberg national security reporter Eli Lake
tells us that the US is about to release a "dossier" explaining the rationale for the Syria strike:
it is "short on specific intelligence" but long on "its refutation of Russian disinformation." As
in the case of the "Russian interference in the election" narrative, we'll doubtless be told that
protecting "sources and methods" precludes us peons from seeing the actual "intelligence." Ours is
not to question why, ours is but to do and die, as the old saw goes: but is that – not to mention
the moral imperative of safeguarding Ivanka's fragile emotional state – really enough to justify
a 180-degree shift in US foreign policy?
The real significance of this "dossier" has little to do with justifying the Syria strike insofar
as actual evidence of Assad's alleged crime is concerned, and more with signaling to the heretofore
hostile "intelligence community' and political actors in the US that the days of President Trump
trying to achieve détente with Russia are over. As Lake points out:
"But it is really the report's condemnation of the Russian response that is most striking.
Trump has sought to reset the relationship with Moscow, as President Barack Obama hoped to do in
2009 and 2010. Now, one U.S. official tells me, Russian officials in phone calls with their Trump
administration counterparts repeated in private the same propaganda lines their government was issuing
in public. 'That has led to a lot of frustration at the highest levels of the government,' this official
said."
Translation: Forget getting along with Russia – just call off your bloodhounds.
We now have Putin
warning that more "provocations" are in store, with some pretty specific details supplied. It
wouldn't surprise me in the least, but we'll have to wait and see if that pans out. In the meantime,
however, three factors are percolating in the mix:
Our spooks, not content with having turned the Trump administration around on Syria policy,
won't let up on the alleged "Russian foreknowledge" angle. These guys mean business.
The previously stalled effort to overthrow Assad by funding and arming the Islamist savages
championed by McCain, Graham, & Co. will recommence, with some success, and
The campaign to smear Trump as a Kremlin tool will continue, unabated, with both the House
and Senate investigations barreling full speed ahead, with plenty of help from the "former intelligence
officials." They aren't about to let Trump off the hook quite so easily.
What all this shows is how far removed the making of US foreign policy is from actual facts on
the ground, and the rational calculation of American interests. What it all comes back to is how
it serves the political interests of those in power – and those who aspire after power. Facts have
nothing to do with it except insofar as they can be manipulated – or created – so as to fit a preexisting
agenda.
There are very few good arguments for striking out at the Syrian government. One of the pseudo-credible
ones is that the use of sarin and other similar weapons, if allowed to go unpunished, would hurt
our legitimate interests, since their use would then become pandemic. The riposte is that anyone
who would even consider using such weapons is not likely to be deterred by US retaliation, no matter
how swift.
In any case, this raises the question: did Bashar al-Assad drop sarin gas on a bunch of civilians
at Idlib? Despite the rush to judgment, we don't know the answer to that question, but several factors
make it unlikely. He was winning the civil war, and this, if you'll pardon the expression, seems
like overkill. Furthermore,
for years the Syrian rebels have been doing their damnedest to frame Assad for just such a heinous
crime in order to provoke US intervention on their behalf, to little avail – until now. Their record
speaks for itself.
If indeed Assad is guilty, then it's conceivable – although I would disagree – that one could
make an argument for a one-off warning strike. Yet that is not what we're seeing at all: already,
Secretary of State Tillerson is echoing that old Obama-Clinton slogan, "Assad must go." This isn't
a one-off: it's a complete reversal of what candidate Trump said he'd do once in office.
As I said in
my last column , the silver lining is that many of Trump's prominent supporters – and former
supporters – are waking up to the importance of non-interventionism as one of the pillars of "Trump_vs_deep_state."
Their former hero's betrayal is putting them on a learning curve – and the best of them will come
out the other side with a new awareness of what "America First" really means.
On the other hand, we are going to have to live with the consequences of this terrible turnabout
– not all of which are readily apparent, and none of which redound to the benefit of the United States
and its citizens.
Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his
2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel
H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest.
According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food
and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces.
A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely
(beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."
A theme echoing through US media in the last few days was that Donald Trump's decision
to attack Syria during dinner with China's president was sending a message to Beijing.
But what was the message?
It was an obvious act of intimidation, a threat, according
to the consensus American interpretation. America is powerful. America is dangerous.
America will use force, so watch out.
At his first face to face meetings with Trump last week, Xi Jinping gave the US
president nothing. Not the least concession on even the smallest issue.
Remarkably, Trump said it himself. After their first round of talks before dinner on
Thursday night, the American leader told reporters: "We had a long discussion already.
So far I have gotten nothing. Absolutely nothing. But we have developed a great
friendship."
If Trump thought that his overnight pyrotechnics display in Syria would change Xi's
attitude, he was mistaken. Xi merely ignored a year of angry Trump bluster and threats
against China.
Point for point on Trump's grievance list: Xi made no concession on trade, no
concession on China's allegedly undervalued currency, no concession on North Korea, no
concession on Taiwan, no concession on the South China Sea.
a classical US-executed false flag a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some
kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe
in coincidences. I don't. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb
a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.
What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that
no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions
or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all
they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way
to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.
Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the
accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.
Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in
the past. You can read everything about this plan
here and
here .
The attack:
American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk
cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on
a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this
point the accounts begin to differ.
The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles
hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the
Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian
reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air
Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended
target. That is a fact.
It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither
the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.
The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems:
GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians
shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA
which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over
Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no
reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and
there is even evidence that they were built in 2014 . The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and
reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously
malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing
cruise missiles:
Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was
just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would
make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly
wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain
why in the political analysis below.
Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect
to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target
(thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able
to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility),
especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be
seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However,
since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic
warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe
that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to
destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken
to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the
destruction of 36 missiles.
In a sign of escalating tensions, even as Mr Tillerson's plane was arriving in at an airport in Moscow, Mr Putin
said in a news conference the the Kremlin has "information" provocateurs are planning to plant chemical substances in
suburban Damascus and blame it on Syrian authorities.
Mr Putin said the situation in Syria reminded him of events in Iraq before the US invaded in 2003, an allusion to
the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration used as a justification to invade. He also
said Western countries divided over the election of President Trump were scapegoating Russia and Syria.
"We've seen all this before," Mr Putin said at a press conference in the Kremlin with Italian President Sergio Mattarella,
describing the chemical attack as "a provocation."
... ... ...
"Syria and Russia provide a common enemy, a very good platform for consolidation" between the US and its western
allies, Mr Putin said. "We're ready to be patient. We hope only that this will end up on some kind of a positive trend."
And the Russian general staff said it has warned the United States not to launch another missile strike in Syria,
saying that would be "unacceptable."
... ... ...
After days of waffling and insisting Mr Putin had no meeting planned with Mr Tillerson, Russian Foreign Ministry
sources told RBC television the two would meet Wednesday.
The ministry laid out its list of expectations for talks that come at a moment when the US-Russian relationship is
"in its most difficult period since the Cold War," the ministry said in a statement.
Russia is "concerned about US plans regarding North Korea in the context of a possible scenario of unilateral use
of force," the ministry said, mirroring the alarm expressed by senior Russian officials Monday about the possibility
of a US strike against Pyongyang.
The Russian side will also expect Washington to agree to "an impartial investigation into the Idlib chemical incident,"
Moscow's terminology for the chemical weapons attack the United States and its allies have blamed on Mr Assad.
Russia has maintained that a Syrian government airstrike on Idlib hit a factory where Syrian rebels were manufacturing
chemical weapons, and Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said after the US missile strike that the Syrian government
"has no chemical arms stockpiles" and said the strike was based on a "far-fetched notion."
Moscow says that it fulfilled its part of a 2013 agreement mandating that Russia oversee the destruction of Mr Assad's
chemical weapons arsenal. On Monday, Russia's general staff said that two locations where chemical weapons might remain
are in territory controlled by Syrian rebels.
But Mr Tillerson told reporters last week's poison gas attack shows Moscow did not take its obligations seriously
or was incompetent. In either case, he added, the distinction "doesn't much matter to the dead."
"We want to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people," he said, and issued an ultimatum: "Russia can be a part
of that future and play an important role. Or Russia can maintain its alliance with this group, which we believe is
not going to serve Russia's interests longer term."
Mr Tillerson's visit has the potential to be a window of opportunity, or another marker in the escalation of tensions
between between the two great superpowers.
On Monday, the foreign ministry warned that if Washington does nothing to improve relations, "Moscow will react reciprocally."
Russia last week suspended a deal that set up a hotline that allowed Russian and US-led coalition air forces to avoid
conflict as they conducted separate operations in the crowded airspace over Syria.
The suspension of that agreement does not mean Russian air defense will shoot down incoming missiles in the event
of another US strike, but it will not prevent Syria from defending itself, Viktor Ozerov, the head of the defense and
security committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament, told the Interfax news agency.
But Russia would defend itself to ensure the safety of air bases and supply bases in Tartus, he said, wherever a
threat originated: by land, air or sea.
Sanctions proposal denied
Mr Tillerson is uniquely qualified to bring a stern warning to the Russians. As the CEO of ExxonMobil, he negotiated
a deal with the state-controlled gas company Rosneft, leading Mr Putin to bestow the Order of Friendship on him. Mr
Tillerson gained a reputation for being willing to walk out on energy deals that did not meet his standards.
If Mr Tillerson succeeds in nudging Moscow away from Mr Assad, he will have successfully leveraged international
outrage over Syria's use of chemical weapons and the US retaliatory strike with the implicit threat it could be used
again.
However, the Trump administration still has not explained whether it has a clear strategy to ensure Mr Assad's departure,
and what would prompt the United States to take further military action.
And diplomats in Italy did not agree on a British proposal to impose more sanctions on Russia over Syria, on top
of sanctions already in place over Ukraine. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano said ministers want Russia to pressure
Mr Assad, but warned, "We must not push Russia into a corner."
Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April 9)reported by Consortium News:
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile
strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the
stomach for confrontation."
"Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic
and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's favor."
"Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the
brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout
the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt
it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate
the conflict to a crisis, and be sure that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing
the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping,
Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."
"... It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank. ..."
"... The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same. ..."
"... everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them ..."
"... world leaders are fed up, including xi ..."
"... what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed... ..."
"... I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much. ..."
"... As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack. ..."
"... You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War. ..."
"... This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day. ..."
"... I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied ..."
"... The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that. ..."
"... Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington. ..."
"... The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun? ..."
"... Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out. ..."
"... A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber. ..."
"... On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security. ..."
"... If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price. ..."
"... Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria. ..."
"... There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention. ..."
"... US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria. ..."
"... I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region) ..."
"... Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night. ..."
"... Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus. ..."
"... In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts. ..."
"... Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ ..."
"... Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect. ..."
"... b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [ ..."
"... All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land. ..."
"... The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum. ..."
"... Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ." ..."
"... I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation? ..."
"... I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates. ..."
"... Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton. ..."
"... It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. ..."
"... I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship. ..."
"... Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke. ..."
"... Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests. ..."
"... The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast. ..."
"... In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it. ..."
"... Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing. ..."
"... In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ... ..."
"... LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet) ..."
"... So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....) ..."
"Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)"
What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria?
The elements were clear just a few days ago. The U.S. would split off the east and set up a Kurdish
enclave which it would then occupy with the help of proxy forces. It would use the leverage to push
for political regime change in western Syria. Israel would occupy another piece of the Golan.
While that looked somewhat favorable for the U.S. in the short term it was bad long term strategy.
U.S. forces in the east would be surrounded by hostiles, cut off from the sea and under permanent
guerilla attack from various opposing forces. But it looked at least like a viable short term way
forward.
The new strategy, which may not be one at all, and the new U.S. commitment is
all over the place :
As various officials have described it, the United States will intervene only when chemical weapons
are used - or any time innocents are killed. It will push for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad
of Syria - or pursue that only after defeating the Islamic State. America's national interest
in Syria is to fight terrorism. Or to ease the humanitarian crisis there. Or to restore stability.
I don't get it. The cacophony of the last days does not make any sense. There is no viable endgame
I see here that would be advantageous for Trump or general U.S. borg policy - neither internationally
nor domestically - neither short term nor long term. Trump is now losing the "America First" followers
he will need to win another election.
Due to the anti-Russian panic Trump
surrendered to the neocons . Suddenly the borg is lauding him for a senseless escalation. The
neocons want chaos but chaos is not a plan. There seems to be no plan that will help any cause.
There is no chance that the U.S. can split Syria from its allies, Hizbullah, Iran and Russia.
While Russia is under pressure in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria it has lived through way worse situation
and these have always increased its determination. I don't see how or why it would fold now.
Trump had an intelligent strategy when he won against Clinton. He deftly use his advantages. There
are few advantages that he has and can play with regards to Middle East policy. Use pure military
force? That's not a strategy, just tactical game play. Though the generals who run his cabinet may
not be capable to see that. If he destroys Syrian then Lebanon and Jordan will also fall to radicals.
Other countries will follow. Iraq would again throw out all U.S. troops. Would the U.S., or Israel,
want that? Why?
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.
Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.
It's the only viable explanation, it also appears Trumps lost his twitter password. Lost the
offhand style and is now being managed.
His plan is survive, i think that's as far as it gets now, he cannot control US foreign policy
under any circumstances.
Touched on it somewhat in the open thread discussions, b.
The administrations motivations appear to be purely domestic political, defensive, under siege,
and extremely short term reactionary.
The leaders of the Empires various vassal States openly declare they're just as confused, too.
Should this incoherent non doctrine, of ' Make it up as you go along from day-to-day
', be formally christened, the 'Trump Doctrine', perhaps ?
Ah, we're the world's sole remaining superpower, supposedly, displaying our true colors, deep
omnipotence and thorough deliberative forward planning, for all the world to see ... /snark
b, 'Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan. Help
me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.'
tee-rump is stupid. he has no plan. he's reacting. everyone who thinks he/she has
a plan is pushing it as tee-rump's plan. tee-rump lets them all go forward - probably isn't even
aware of them all - will 'fire' those that fail, 'adopt' any that might not, that at least give
him 'topical relief'.
the fools - the evil clowns - are in power in ac/dc.
It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has
been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately
owned central bank.
The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation
Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was
establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria,
and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence
that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same.
In any case, it looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran,
and Syria working together in peace. And make sure that central bank ownership is changed. Chaos
may not be great, but it seems to generate profits and achieve goals for people at the top of
the food chain. I do not hear much complaining about Libya. Why not the same for Syria?
Whether or not Trump has a plan, he does have a trump card, Nuclear. After all, the Congress used
it with the conformation process the other day. They might be similar in name only, but the fact
1/2 was used - i.e. the congress - means the U.S. might use the other 1/2. One has to wonder,
just whose side are the pooh-baas really on?
G7 in Italy today; French FM says it is just the calendar chance, but they spoke mainly about
Syria (Tillerson was there before he flies to Moscow). Ayrault says they are 100 percent in agreement
on the plan for Syria with ARAB and TURKISH allies...
i.e. they saved the Merkel-Turkey deal about the million Syrians in Turkey. No question about
Erdogan's policies will be taken. Business as usual.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
Absolutely, a "very stupid plan"....... Or he had a plan and that plan was blown away by the
Deep Forces that Trump, obviously ,will not dare to challenge . So much for the "Good All USA
Swamp Cleaning"
So, where is everybody now? On the streets? No, watching TV and eating Burritos.
I don't see this plan working. The question is at what point does Trump give up and try something
else, hopefully before igniting WWIII. Trump is in a real jam. He doesn't really have any ideas/solutions
of his own, his advisors lack any real solutions, and he lacks institutional or public support.
Will he end up surrendering to the borg? He may want to resign. He will try to blame others.
The US attack on Sha'riat airbase turned out to be much less than it was portrayed by the corporate
presstitutes. As we know already, 23 of the 59 Tomahawk missiles reached their targets. Of the
others, about 5 or 6 might have gone astray and the rest could have been intercepted and redirected
by Russian forces near Latakia. The missiles fell around the perimeter of Sha'riat airbase, the
main runway was not damaged and Syrian jets were using it not long after the attack. Russia was
pre-warned of the US attack and managed to evacuate most personnel (as did the Syrians). The Russians
also knew the US attack had been pre-planned even before the Syrian airforce dropped a conventional
bomb on the terrorist warehouse storing sarin gas and chlorine gas components in Idlib.
The whole incident may have been staged in part to buy Trump time and to trick the neocon establishment
on Capitol Hill into believing it has Trump by the short and curlies. Trump has a good opportunity
to gauge the loyalty or treachery of his cabinet and administration, and of Congress, by observing
how they react to the Tomahawk attack.
Also, is it necessarily a given that after the Sha'riat airbase attack, the US will engage
in further attacks on Syrian territory? There's been some news that since the attack, US bombing
flights over Syria have decreased. Perhaps there was some deal-making that we don't know about.
... looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria
working together in peace.
Though the actual effect appears to actually be very much the opposite, as well as disrupting
vassal State cohesion/alignment and stiffening resolve among the non-aligned States re blatant,
outright, 'Rogue' conduct.
"trump and putin are setting a trap for the neocons"
the logic runs like this...
everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans
sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them
world leaders are fed up, including xi
so putin and trump will terrorize americans into doing some thinking, and xi is in on the gag
McCain and graham will go down in flames, along with the main media
that is admittedly the bright side... the dark side is: Richard Perle has the negative of trump
and that burro
Given the RF promptly cancelled the de-confliction MOU and communication channel, that means
any US/coalition aircraft in flight over Syria within ~250Km+ of Latakia or Tartus (S400/300+
complexes) are at extreme risk.
This is because those aircraft fly at mid to high altitudes to avoid possible engagement by
numerous Syrian AD SAM/Gun systems captured and in known use by ISIS/AQ & various moderate head-choppers
...
if true US/Coalition have ceased overflights, may not necessarily indicate anything more than
that for now, simple force protection measure in the interim, perhaps.
It is all about who will be the hegemon in the middle east, Apartheid Israeli expansionism in
the West Bank, Golan Heights and beyond, not forgetting Israels claims on the Litani river. Plus
Israels ability to influence the US electoral process through bundlers like Sheldon Adelson and
Haim Saban etc, plus the almost 100% support of Israel in Congress, winning US elections is what
it is all about. Saudi Arabia also has good friends in Congress, just so long as they continue
to use the petro dollar and continue purchasing 100's of billions of dollars on US arms.
Both countries are coming together in their fear of Iran, thinking that Israels military power
and Saudi money will fix everything is delusional. US thinking has it that the 'arc of resistance'
must be defeated and that Syria 'the low hanging fruit' of that coalition shall be the first to
fall, followed by Hezbollah then Iran.
The US realize their hegemony in the region is at stake, that is why they are thrashing about
with futile gestures accusing Syria and Russia in turn of war crimes. In my opinion the 'arc'
will prevail, such is the existential nature of the struggle, the US, Israel/Saudi Arabia and
the head choppers are on the wrong side of history.
what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy,
process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed...
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.
I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems
are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with
and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much.
As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle
for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started
came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack.
You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War.
Against this newly united faction realists in the military and other national security agencies
opposed drastic military action and for three years there was a back and force--sometimes the
War Party held some advantage and sometimes the realists dragged their feet.
In late September of 2016 the realists seemed to have some momentum and the Kerry/Lavrov agreement
was signed. With stunning swiftness the agreement was condemned by the War mongers and SecDef
Carter mutinied and scuttled the agreement within a week.
This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National
Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone
knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war.
Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent
on War! Inc. all the way every day.
I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied
and probably convinced himself that he was doing the right thing--what else could he do? The
office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as
many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do
that.
I have no idea if Trump is playing possum and waiting to fight another day or if he is merely
content in being Head of State and letting the bureaucracy (Deep State) run the government without
interference.
Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes
major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all
who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the
American people whose interests are of no account in Washington.
The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't
that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun?
Given the scary way things are going, so light relief may be in order, so here is a link I
came across of Russian press call in which Lavrov expertly trolls Tillerson.
I think Trump (Bannon) gave a piece of rope to neocon guys in his house and they used it to make
this current mess. Bannon excused himself so other guys can hang themselves without him being
burn. They wanted a fire, they got one.
DS is not stupid enough to really start WW3 and fireplaying guys will ultimately burn at some
moment this whole Bannon stratagem plays out. It looks risky as hell, but given precision of other
guys strategic arms nobody is crazy enough to play too far.
Other side knows this, and just makes fire hotter an hotter - while helping SAA to became more
and more of A and many other steps all around the world. Once this plays out somebody will pay
and I think Trump will not be one paying. He will get out of this a winner, an empathic and wise
leader. And Putin will still be smiling one.
I really have no idea. It does look as if he was finally beaten down by the so-called 'deep
state' (more properly, the oligarchy).
Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could
project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.
You are assuming that anyone elected to office has the power to do anything. Politics is merely
a sideshow.
Take Europe as a typical case in point. In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners
of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists
in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.
Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing
cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.
Marxists, Fascists and Democrats all subscribe to a policy of perpetual fiscal deficits. No
exception.
Regardless the underlying condition of the economy, Western governments run fiscal deficits
and rack up sovereign debt perpetually.
But in a closed system where there is an entity that has been anointed as the owner of the
currency and where the unit of account is imposed under penalty of law, perpetual deficits have
arithmetical ramifications.
The ramification is the migration of profit towards the owner of the currency.
As profit migrates, so does title and political power.
Essentially, the central bank has been allowed to draw a boundary around society. The central
bank doesn't care what happens within the boundary because their sole role is to push credit into
the system.
Central banks have no other role.
In this regard, the central bank has the most to gain when the economy is faltering.
In this regard too, the roles of the World Bank, the IMF or the UN should become clearer. Hence
the reason, for example, that the UN always, always, alway disburses funds even when corruption
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the reason that despite subsequent damning reports
by SIGAR, USAid still spends hundreds of millions on white elephants in war zones.
Syria is but a side show. As is Yemen, Iraq, Libya and many other theatres prior.
The end game the transfer of title.
Title is transferred by precipitating chaos.
As you precipitate chaos, the fiscal strain compels the political construct to tighten the
fiscal and legislative screws on people.
In a first instance, this monetary system can only result in the political construct having
to, eventually, fight against the people.
Shortly after that, the political construct will have to fight against the owners of the currency
too. This arrangement however, also builds up and nourishes an increasingly necessary security
apparatus to ensure its own survival.
As the fiscal situation worsens however, the Praetorians will, though gradually, inevitably
take over. The Praetorian Guard has now taken over. That is what is happening in Syria
A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers.
The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady
to that of a tafiri suicide bomber.
I am thinking that the Putin plan of a stalemate is going well ...Most plebs in the west want
the US out of the ME and most in the ME want the US out so its looking like a win win . >)
On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore
Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national
security.
There are rumors in the British press that Tillerson is going to make Russia an offer, presumably
one seen by the US as something Russia cannot possibly refuse. The deal in question - give up
Assad in favor of returning to the G7.
This is totally laughable for several reasons.
i) The G7 probably has zero merit to the Russian government. At best, sanctions will be
lifted, but they are actually of benefit to Russia.
ii) Assad per se is not important to Russia. The west really doesn't get that - they are
so trapped in their own made-up world. The Russians are in Syria to kill the terrorists so
they can't be used against Russia sometime later and to preserve the concept of the primacy
of national territorial integrity / self-determination. However, it Assad was replaced before
the terrorists are rmeoved, the possible pro-west replacement could kick Russia out of Syria
before the key part is done. So in that sense, Russia's default is Assad stays.
If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia
has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price.
Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable
first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in
other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria.
There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility
in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists
in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will
mean military intervention.
(Putin)..."We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot
call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs
of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack,"...
..."President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session
the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in
Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and
the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ....
...A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General
Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria...
US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep
for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes,
missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria.
"Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
---
I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme
that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas
stations in the region).
Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS
'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style --
noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that
all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes.
Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th
century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night.
Trump: he looks bored already. Suggest he's just pressed the whiz button on the DC food
processor -- Republicans are acting like they won the election. Wrong, Trump and Bannon and Flynn
won the election. Payback will be the mid-term in 2018 where all 435 seats in the United States
House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested.
He's moving to hand these parasites back to 'the people' in one fine mess.
Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to
the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever
the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of
all. Bread and circus.
In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune
in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's
the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes
on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts.
The only way this system of systemic corruption and abomination is going to stop is if/when
the Russians/Chinese and any others simply target their "10,000" nukes on the GPS readings of
the 0.01% cohort of individuals and start the countdown.
Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners
... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
An interesting blog. Brandon seems like someone willing to look beyond normal stereotypes and
has a unique take on current affairs. I'd suggest checking-out some of his other blog post about
the election. He also has information on making a ghillie suit which defeats thermal imaging (FLIR)
– I'm sure this is something all MoA folks will be wearing come summer (snark).
Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side
note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other.
I've been reading aleksandr solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, but I find I can't finish
it. Too stark and too many moments that make me think the folks in the USA are about to experience
the book first hand. Sigh.
Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that
the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect.
Trump's NY-sized ego forces him to seek to dominate. In Trump's world, that means $$$$$. By
servicing wealthy ME interests, he can leverage his business to make billions.
Obama only got a $60m book deal. Trump's 'take' will rival the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play
scheme.
The weak attack on Shayrat was a 'shot across the bow'. Trump sent a signal that further R+6 advances
will not be tolerated. It is a 'one off' only if Putin agrees to a deal.
@34 thanks for the blog recommendation - looks interesting at a first glance.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement: "Thanks to the patrons and especially b for
keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on
news and not bash each other."
I don't really see this one unified front when it comes to US foreign policy, one might view this
administration, going forward, as schizophrenic as the last one.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, after all, the US is considered to be
an oligarchy , there are too many influental people, corporations and institutions pulling
the strings of the empire.
The question is, how does one deal with the US considering its mental health issues?
... ... ...
2. Trump controls nothing and never will. When Peter Dale Scott began talking about the Deep State
many years ago he made it clear that the term derived from the Turkish "Donmeh". The donmeh has
always been strpngly crypto Jewish and was the decisive force behind Kemal Attaturk that put the
secular Turkish government in place. The donmeh includes Turkish, Israeli, and Saudi power factions
with differing but allied agendas. The Syria situation is confused because the Turks are deeply
confused about what would be acceptable to them.
... ... ...
36
The deal is, Putin pulls support of Syria totally. No weapons, no ammunition into Syria, no support
whatsoever so AQ can get the upper hand.
Though I doubt the strike is a one off. The decision has already been made to hit Syria, Russia
or no Russia.
b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [Mike Tyson ]
That punch...
The Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's acceptance of the Syrian invitation to help them defeat the
headchoppers.Game set and match to Syria.
All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would
be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal
more land.
The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't
stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum.
The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says experience shows that Russia does not take well to
threats or ultimatums. If Mr Tillerson thinks he can weaken Moscow's support for President Assad,
he may need to re-think, our correspondent says, adding that ...
Tillerson Gives Russia Ultimatum: Side With The US Or Iran
International Business Times - 25 minutes ago
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was scheduled to meet with Russian diplomats this week to
discuss Russia's obligation to drain Syria of chemical weapons under a 2013 agreement. Tillerson
gave Russia an ultimatum Tuesday to side with the U.S ...
Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks,
that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ."
But maybe we should better ask Kissinger, who once said: "No one knows, what he (Trump) is going to do. So we can make of him anything we want to.
He is what we want to make him .
Guess that was the big, somehow erratic plan right from the beginning - I am afraid.
Anyway, most likely its a waste of time trying to find out, what big plans Trumps will be pulling
out of the wizards hat.
On the other hand, it could be live saving to start to thing about the plan WE should come up
to get us out of this mess.
I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic
policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively
(rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in
the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due
to (a) causation or (b) correlation?
(a) If "causation", then the US will likely keep increasing its activities and presence until
Syria is partitioned and the US has permanent bases.
For us peaceniks, potential upside is to mitigate militant Israeli rulers lack of confidence
in their long-term survivability:
Permanent US bases in southern Syria place a buffer between Israel and Muslim countries.
US would more directly guarantee Israel's security.
With Israel's newest land grab, they'll secure substantial long-term energy supplies.
Once they feel substantially less threatened, then maybe a later generation of people living
in the region will not know war so intimately.
(Still on their "to do" list is "relocate the Palestinians somewhere". Maybe relocate the Palestinians
to a re-partitioned Syria or Libya, now that part of those populations has been sent to Europe
as refugees?? Again, gotta wonder about causation versus correlation.)
About "hate the game, not the players", I understand why Israeli militant rulers feel the way
they do. If they choose not to play brutal geopolitcal games, others will. Indeed, when you observe
the ease with which they and others successfully excited Christian sheeple into becoming attack
dogs, you can see they have no choice but to do so, because other irrational rulers could and
would eventually come along and turn those same sheeple against them. The world is cruel and you
cannot safely "choose not to play".
(If most self-professed "Christians" weren't so easily goaded into supporting killing people,
then maybe they wouldn't need to be "wagged". But, I don't see that day coming. Especially with
the way history is (not) taught.)
(b) It could simply be "correlation". After all, imperialist but self-professed "Christian"
hordes have been killing each other, Muslims, and Jews with abandon for millenia. (What's that
about "religion of peace"?? In recent memory, "Christianity as practiced" is far less a "religion
of peace" than Islam.) What we see in the ME could simply be more ordinary US/UK/Western European
imperialism, like the kind we've seen historically and continuing to present day everywhere else
around the world.
The "light at the end of the tunnel" is that general artificial intelligence is coming soon.
If it doesn't kill us, there's some "hope" the hegemon that emerges within 10 years will use its
omniscience and omnipotence to impose/guarantee safety to all of us in the panopticon.
>> Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.
Not true. Capitalist colonies that transformed from capitalist to Marxist experiences giant
improvements in literacy and longevity within just a few years. That in spite of a constant state
of war imposed on them by their former and future masters.
Compare Cuba people's fortunes with any and every other tiny nation in Oceania's direct shadow.
Heck, Cuba's biggest export was doctors. Better than "the world's greatest purveyor of violence"
by a long shot.
I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman
he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal
immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An
additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates.
So when Obama starts wars all over the Middle East, Trump claimed to want peace. When Obama
struck a deal with Iran, Trump wanted to nuke it. Same with TPP, Obama care etc. In the same way
I suspect that Trumps hatred for Mexico comes from several botched businessdeals in Mexico that
cost him a lot of money.
Now that Trump has what he wants (the White House and giving Obama the finger), he is only
interested in 'winning'. So when the Bannon-Flynn wing couldn't give him victories, he started
to go with the Kushner-Cohn wing. Trump seems to be very opportunistic without any commitment
to a principled policy. And with people he acts the same: anyone remember how he dropped Christy
and Gingrich after they campaigned for him? Same with Flynn: he dropped him for no good reason.
Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration
left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton.
It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump
just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. And he did get
it: the MSM is suddenly loving him, the Trump-is-Putin-meme has all but disappeared, his approval
rate just bumped up and the Israel-lobby is elated. It is not even that Trump sold out his voter-base.
He was never committed to them in the first place and now they're in for a rude awakening - how
sad!
Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April
9)reported by Consortium News:
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the
face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing
the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."
"Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive
political, diplomatic and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's
favor."
"Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect
the Syrian people from the brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral
of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike
unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians
from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region
so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and be sure
that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there
is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response
in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong
Un that the days of American passivity are over."
What Trump hasn't seen but Putin does see is that in order to become a leader recognized by history
as great and ultimately able himself to face himself, one has to stand by what he has told the
people he will do. In that illusory state of blindness he resembles Obama greatly and resides
within a bubble of immediate, transitory acclaim. Our hope was that, in his later years now, he
would have realized, with our support, what a sham that attitude has been - Obama has yet to realize
it, but he eventually will, and his declining years will face him with that reality. It's a huge
shame for both men that they seem unable to appreciate that they both had the potential to be
great and have both shunned the prospect.
Putin will now turn away. Not belligerently, but with great sadness. Tillerson is taking, RT
says, an ultimatum from the G7 which Putin will not accept. If he, Tillerson, presents this, he
will quickly be shown the door. Politely, but quickly. Russia will not, cannot, accept any 'deal'.
The best we can hope for is that they will ignore us and concentrate on the real tragedies of
people under siege and lives lost. The best we can hope for is that our blustering 'leader' will
find some other distraction that doesn't get in the way, for whatever sort of time he still wants
to spend pretending to be president. Because that he is not. If Russia can manage without us,
they will have to do so, and I really don't know how the US is going to be able to manage.
Movies and tv shows maybe. Movies and tv shows. And blue jeans. We could go back to making
blue jeans; we were good at that.
I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear
from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government
policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and
the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they
would essentially run the ship.
Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant
of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans
made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke.
We are failing to learn from that history.
Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America
First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against
Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn
had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and
being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines
in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock
negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently
wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the
mideast.
Is it a wonder that in the age of fake news the master media manipulator won the elections??
In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria.
His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons)
will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope.
That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with
this gambit, he has got it.
Also, with the war crazy neocons flocking to his banner, they have proved that they are neither
republicans nor are they democrats. they just support whoever seems ablest to sow more war and
chaos. A blight on their houses!
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan
well, if he's not stupid the idea that he's been 'captured' doesn't really hold up. unless,
of course, the man with no name put the old luger to his temple and talked to him softly about
the well-being of his beautiful wife and children.
after all these years, decades really, the aggregate of lies, betrayals, and deceptions, criminality
of the vilest nature, has sucked all the oxygen out of strategic thinking . off-the-cuff
accusations of gas attacks without a shred of evidence, or even a sham investigation, followed
hours later by a cruise missile bombardment pretty much confirms this. now it looks like raw imperialism
on steroids.
of course the only viable plan would be to pack up and go home, start a political reconciliation
process, and pay a massive reparations bill.
Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the
US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson
talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to
build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that
after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened?
Nothing.
In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent
them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant
because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to
investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence
of who did it and why ...
End result: huge cover-up .... according to Mattson:
"CIA-information withheld from NRC and FBI" ... "FBI did not look until too late" .. "FBI &
CIA feared Israel's pushback" (!)
LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty
but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money
would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates
US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet)
So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and
then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons"
are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy
... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....)
Trump undoubtedly has a plan, such as it is, but the competing plans from the many different major
actors make it difficult to discern or execute. Imagine a football game where a dozen teams are
all playing one another at the same time. Obama's plan was to kinda sorta do something, hoping
nobody would notice the dearth of morality or coherence, and Trump may be falling into the same
trap.
Ockham: every appearance points to no plan, ergo, until evidence directs otherwise, the hypothesis
that there is no plan best explains the circumstances. Trump, like our past 3 Presidents, appears
to be over his head, unable to reconcile streams of advice into a coherent policy, and close to
flailing. He has thrown away his cover on the intelligent right; he has defaulted into cover from
the borg where he is despised. If/when evidence is presented that the Syria 'gas attack' was a
false flag, he is through. Better lucky than smart, but it sure looks time has run out on Trump
with respect to both.
Still funny how so many people fall for the "Trump is an idiot" scheme, go on underestimating
him, that's what he wants.
Personally I think it's important to look at the "military action" he took. Sending a bunch of
tomahawks on an unimportant target, all with a prior warning, is hardly a heavy retaliation, which
makes sense since Assad did nothing worthy of retaliation, and Trump most certainly knew that.
But look what happend, everyone is loosing their shit, complaining about how Trump will start
WW3, and all the while, the warhawks flook to trump and endorse his actions, actions that the
majority of the population condems because they're either pro-Trump, and hold him to his campaign
promise of "america first", or are against Trump, and therefore condem absolutly everything he
does. Imagine Hilary doing the same thing, her followers would have hailed her as a hero for fighting
this Evil-Monster-Assad™. We will have to see how this situation plays out, but to toss in my
two cents, I suspect that the war tension will get seriously hyped up by the media and Trump will
play his part in that aswell, either by remaining silent or by resorting to vague politically
meaningless statements. Once the public is outraged and people are frigthend enough Trump can
handle syria without appearing weak or being attacked as a russian ploy. Afterall Trump has nothing
to win by starting a war in syria, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly outobama Obama,
for what reason? Money? Power? Sure the deepstate could blackmail him, but I'm honestly sure that
after all these baseless attacks they could have a video of him in full SS-Garb shooting a bunch
of puppies and the public wouldn't give a shit.
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid.
He must have some kind of plan.
Welcome to the club.
Given his inaugural drain the swamp declaration, and the inherent hazards and complexities, there
was no chance at all that His presidency would be anything other than a perpetual guessing game.
Imo, Trump seems to be the first POTUS in modern times to fully comprehend, and exploit, the outer
limits of the power and respect that the position confers on the incumbent. Everyone who matters
on the World Stage is obliged to listen when POTUS speaks, and at least pretend to take him seriously,
whether they agree or not.
----------------------
As Outraged has alluded to above, the G8-1 wank-fest was as anti-climactic as Xi's meeting with
Trump. Perhaps someone stayed sober enough to suggest they all take a cold shower and stop talking
a load of drivel that even they, themselves, were having trouble pretending to believe.
Howzat?!
Putin won, in absentia!
Trump's "plan" seems to be to rush the net and provoke a sense of crisis, "danger" (to whom by
what?) and "chaos" (no coherent storyboard or "message discipline" as many have mentioned).
No, I don't think Trump is "smart" ... pre-inauguration (even) he was described as a person
whose opinion is most formed by the person he last spoke to ... and he appears to be an easily
distracted, never-shuts-up (talking about himself), poor listener. He may not be "stupid" but
he's not smart or disciplined either. He's impressed by his own mythology wrt flying by the seat
of his pants through crisis after crisis, with multiple spinning plates ... he's a plate-spinner
of some skill.
The G7 has declined to impose additional sanctions on Putin -- OR -- Syria, meaning, I hope,
they recognize how overblown and opportunistically exploited this alleged use of chemical weapons
incident has become.
Guardian .
The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified
message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However,
G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a UK call for
fresh sanctions.
(It's likely not of much too much significance, but does represent at least detour or delay
as opposed to an Anti-Putin and Anti-Assad rubber stamp)
Is R2P even part of Trump's vocabulary? Yes, sentence first, trial after (if anyone can be
forced to remember the incident is disputed and the investigation is incomplete)
I have to agree with these comments. In 2002 the Bush admin had a plan for Iraq. We all know
what that was. The problem for Bush was that he started losing the resulting war. After 2004 just
about every decision was some ad hoc fix and compromise after another to avert a more obvious
defeat. Obama inherited that situation and his policies, if they can be called that, were unchanged.
The only initiative Obama has shown was to extend Bush's plan to Libya and Syria but without massive
use of US troops on the ground. This has resulted in the destruction of the Libyan state and the
Syrian War. Again Obama's wars have failed just as Bush's. Like Bush, Obama resorted to ad hoc
fixes and compromises that led directly to the incoherent policies pursued by Kerry.
What Trump has added is a quantitative change, not qualitative. The frequency of incoherent
and contradictory moves has just increased. Even the open split in current policy where Nikki
openly contradicts Tillerson was seen in the Obama admin when Ash Carter shot down Kerry's efforts
at a Syrian deal.
It is pointless to try to define a policy from this mess. It should be obvious that the incoherence
is the result of some serious divisions inside the deep state and what is likely stirring the
current crisis in US policy is an effort by part of the deep state to overthrow or neuter the
Trump admin. Identifying the competing factions is not that difficult. Assessing the relative
power of those factions and what policies those faction's prefer are more difficult.
So many folks breathlessly anticipating mushroom clouds in our future, I fear we are being manipulated
into gratitude and relief at anything less ... which also seems to have become a recognizable
Trump (and MSM) tactic ...
Team Trump has apparently failed to "normally" and effectively stage-manage the annual White
House Easter Egg hunt -- a logistical nightmare that a hotelier and beauty pageant magnate and
staff might have been expected to ace... diminished expectations ... many fewer participants,
military bands rather than A-list acts (Bieber apparently was a past entertainer 2010 to an onsite
audience of 30,000 mentioned). Commemorative "eggs" ordered late, local schools still have not
received their invitations. Apparently, they have only half the "normal" number of volunteers
to staff the event
Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000
children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems
in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing
military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said
they had yet to be contacted.
Look what's happened with Trumps initial moves in the whitehouse in some detail:
-Appoints Michael Flynn
-Flynn appoints Ezra-Cohn Watnik to senior director of intelligence at National Security Council
-Flynn alters national security council January 28
-removes director national intelligence
-removes chairman of joint chiefs of staff
-removes director of the CIA
-removes US chief representative to the UN (state department?)
-removes secretary of energy (nuclear weapons complex)
-adds chief strategist to the president (Bannon)
-Flynn gets removed by Vice President leaking that Flynn lied to him about Russia, Trump asks
for Flynn resignation.
-Ezra-Cohn Watnik discovers who unmasked Flynn during Obama admin, leaks info to Nunes.
-NYT reveals Watnik is the leaker
-McMaster tries to transfer Watnik out of NSC, Trump and Jared intervene.
-April 4 McMaster succeeds in altering National Security Council back to original pre Trump configuration,
removing Bannon's position and reinstating all of the others.
-within days of that move, events unfold in Syria and US policy shifts 180 degrees, both in Syria
and apparently in North Korea.
-----
It's clear that Flynn's departure was the beginning of the end, it's just taken a little bit of
time. Bannon, Watnik and Nunes were working to try and maintain control however they've clearly
been crippled as Bannon's now off of NSC and Nunes recused himself from the probe into Russia.
There is no Trump master plan in motion, the people who he originally hired to enact his vision
are either sidelined or fired.
Some have suggested that Trump is practicing "Mad Dog" diplomacy, wherein an appearance of being
dangerously unpredictable can be useful in getting your way.
Perhaps.
I do point out, however, that to be long-term effective "Mad Dog" diplomacy requires that one
not actually BE a mad dog.
Quote, "In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology.
From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner
of "Democrats" elsewhere.
Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing
cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life. "
I am not sure things are like that because of some sort of natural decline. I have a link that
tells a whole different story, one of occupation of Europe by the USA since right after WW2.
That US occupation came most at the same time as the end of the European colonies (pushed by the
USA with the Atlantic Charter). Unable to carry on plundering its colonies, the post-war, destroyed
and impoverished Europe was left well-nigh totally dependent on US investments.
The US occupation of Europe (and Japan) was economic, military and cultural. And we are still
ruled by the USA swamp creatures (I am French). http://www.entelekheia.fr/how-did-europe-become-an-american-turf/
Trump's plan is to stay in the presidential seat and try to deliver on at least 1 of his promises
which he will so desperately cling to just like Obama clung so desperately to 1 of his promises,
health care, that eventually became an abomination. Trump has no power over the chain of events
occurring in Syria or beyond and is just there to give it legitimacy, to keep the illusion allive
as if the pursued policy is being led by someone people voted for. It's like in Europe when NATO
first bombed Libya and then the parliaments voted for the military action giving their approval
while it should have been the other way round so it was just to give the impression that there
is some democratic veneer to the pursued policies.
The policy of the US deep state/borg is chaos and fragmentation like Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia,
... resulting in weak meaningless pliable statelets.
Lest you forget, propaganda is still legal in the US of A, courtesy of the Patriot Act. You
too must have noticed the Trump administration's decision to double down on their predecessors'
efforts in spreading the 'fog of war' far and wide, by disseminating contradictory reports and
opinions by .gov officials, "anonymous sources" and various psy-ops projects. Simultaneously Trump
decides to black out all info regarding US troops deployment in the ME (as opposed to Obama's
most.transparent.administration.ever. that at least reported some 'numbers') and send more boots
on the ground in Jordan and with the Kurds.
Now all we have to do is just sit back, relax and wait for the next "barrel bombing by Assad's
regime" to (not) take place and be "reported" by zionist presstitutes, the rest is a question
of simple math...
"Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election. "...
Neither Trump nor his minders have need nor great desire for "must have" a 2nd-Pres. term.
The deed is already done and more deeds are works in progress.
The DeepState, SecretTeam, DarkSide, 5thColumn and other clichés for CovertActions are the
continuation of plans at least going back to Federal Reserve creation 1913 [which arguably involved
blackmail-control of Woodrow Wilson via his alleged, late-stage syphilis].
So a 2nd pres term is a distraction.
When considering global movers-and-shakers, understand that old-wealth families have the privileges
of generation-to-generation , continuous communication networks and accumulated implanted agents
and mutual benefits that are vital to continuing their wealth status, with its growing control
networks that span generations.
Any "new money" lacks such time-honed privileges. BTW, "they" know all about assassination;
there is no tech that rivals assassination when it becomes necessary to maintain old-wealth status.
The removal of the Russian Czar system and its 300-year old Romanov family reign, threatened and
terrified all other old-wealth families and established an all-out war to maintain the status
of the remaining "families". If you were looking for the real movers-and-shakers, you might start
here.
" Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey? "
Well maybe because the US does not control Iraq (at least to the level to secure a pipeline)
and probably does not control Turkey either.
These pipeline stories as an explanation for every twist and turn in US actions in the ME are
becoming tedious. Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the
1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e.
Zionist) into US foreign policy circles.
Netanyahu visits Trump; IsraHell bombs Syria; Netanyahu demands buffer zones into the Golan
Heights; Tillerson says Assad can stay; 'Sarin gas' (fake news) explodes in Idlib; The Jew-owned
media blames Assad sans any proof; War criminals Mattis and McMaster concur and Trump buys the
JEW LIE; Tillerson caves; Trump BOMBS Syria; Tillerson reverses and says Assad must go and Russia
is complicit; Jews applaud!
Add to WG's list that Trump now has a fully legal impeachment hanging over his head.
For the past twelve months or so, US has been building up forces on Russia's borders. Not enough
for any sort of attack - apart from Kaliningrad perhaps - but enough that Russia must maintain
sufficient forces in place to face that threat. The build up of US forces in Europe seems to have
begun some time after Russia moved into Syria for the purpose of tying up Russian forces.
Russian MoD
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12118216@egNews
...Moreover, according to the information, insurgents are delivering toxic substances to the areas
of Khan Sheikhoun, Jira airport, East Ghouta and to the west from the Aleppo city.
The purpose of these actions is making another reason to accuse Syrian government of chemical
weapons use and provocation of new US attacks.
The Russian party warns against making such steps.
Russia are now beefing up Syrian air defences and apparently other measures.
Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?
his "base" is beginning to turn against him.
all of a sudden, the Dems and Liberals are cock-a whoop for him
while those who actually supported him are turning against him.
i think he's probably lost it.
I would say the bombing of the Syrian airfield served the function of a valve - opened to relieve
pressure. The pressure was the intense hysteria in the USA media and political culture over the
"chemical attack" with the additional context of alleged Russian meddling in favour of the new
administration.
As to the end of the de-confliction communications, I suspect this will be reinstated at some
point. Based on statements by Russian military soon after the "chemical attack" - to the effect
that the flight plan of the plane, which conducted a mission in the area at the same time as the
alleged attack, had been shared with the Americans ahead of time, as routine, and the Russians
assume this information was passed to the rebel groups who staged the attack so the theatrical
presentation could be timed to coincide with the presence of that plane.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
His plan is to survive as Potus. That's all. He has pretty strong fascistoid beliefs, but of course
surviving is more important. So the nihilistic neocons are on the march again.
Could we all just grab a clue please? Mr. Trump, in the role of Reagan, is nothing more than a
salesperson selling whatever the corporate giants have to sell. He is here to sell his brand,
and by way of that, the empire's goals also. Global hegemony is the game for the empire/NATO.
This modern empire will not tolerate competition of any kind. So regime change is in store for
any nation that will not comply.
Mr. Trump is a spoiled rich brat, but is is a superb "snake oil salesman". Like Reagan, perfect
for the empire's needs.
TG@74 We already have a mad dog on the Trump team 'Mad dog Mattis. here are some of his quotes.
"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some
assholes in the world that just need to be shot."
(Business Insider)
3. "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:
If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
(San Diego Union Tribune)
4. "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one
of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
Perhaps we should take a deep breath and exhale slowly ... a short take on the G8-1 love-in:
After two days of the usual, a supplementary joint position/statement was sought, the primary
driver being Perfidious Albion, UK, with US, Tillerson in support, the response of the Foreign
Ministers of Italy, France, Germany, Canada & Japan, whilst diplomatic observers of Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar & Turkey stand around looking on sternly:
1. We should all agree to launch action against Russkies to teach 'em a lesson: No.
2. Well what about agreeing to take action against Syria and that demon-head Assad: No.
3. Alright, lets agree to new sanctions against Russia then: No.
4. Can we at least agree to new sanctions against Evil Assads Syria: No.
5. What about we agree the chemical incident was a bad bad thing and it should be thoroughly investigated:
Yes.
Righy-O then, says Tillerson, with that unanimous ringing endorsement and steadfast explicit
backing & support I'm off to Moscow to present my credentials and on arrival immediately thereafter
issue an Ultimatum to Evil Beelzebubic(sic) Putin and put him in his place --
Meanwhile Putin and the President of Italy are meeting and declare the reported chemical incident
should be thoroughly investigated ...
The corporate owned MSM is hyping all this to the max and beyond ... meanwhile, later this
week the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran will meet in Moscow ...
Exactly! Trump has traded threatened impeachment over groundless accusations for the threat
of impeachment (if he doesn't play along) over legitimate impeachable offences. Seems at best
a decision made in panic to buy time, and at worst an acknowledgement of capitulation.
I fear they've already decided to attack they're just not sure when. Perhaps they're just going
to keep pushing until US soldiers are killed and then there will be the congressional vote for
war.
Something is brewing. For Putin to publicly call the Americans out today during a press conference
with the Italian President by stating US plans to bomb Damascus, is exceptional.
@82, Brother Nate is here! Not all "Jews applaud", Bro Nate. Neturei Karta for one.
http://www.nkusa.org/
Love your videos, you got a fire under you, and it shows. But your suggestion that Jews are born
evil contradicts science AND Jesus whom you claim to venerate.
Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83
"Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?"
The US never had the power to do this - see Cuban missile crisis. Both militaries are careful
not to get involved in any tit for tat that would finally lead to nuclear war. So Ukrainians and
Syrians have to go to a proxy war against each other with outside support. It was better in the
cold war when lines were drawn who was allowed to support which government.
The G7 countries have just refused further sanctions for Russia and are asking for proof.
The truth will come out, probably via Turkey, especially if Erdogan loses the referendum.
Peace would be easy if everybody took regime change from the table - the US, Iran, Saudi.
Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade
war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.
David 34
Thanks for the interesting link. The US banking holiday of 1933, the Cyprus haircut of 2013, the
Indian demonetization of 2017. There are precendents for the banking systems to take dramatic/drastic
steps either as the result of economic change or precipitously/preemptively. Will TPTBs do such
a thing to the US? Hopefully not anytime soon. But it does fit in with their stated overall game
plan.
jayc 85
Perhaps Trump released the valve. It's sad that that's the best we can hope for. Meanwhile, Trump
can now relish that - like his predecessors going back for decades - he is officially a wartime
president.(with the associated madness that entails) http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness
Unfortunately for everyone, the United States is utterly opposed to "peace" ... couldn't find
it in the dictionary, much less the encyclopedia, much less draw a picture of it, except maybe
one that has a tripartite Syria to match the tripartite several times proposed and rejected for
Iraq and now apparently also to Libya. Balkanization or Bosnification appears to be one unifying
"plan" under the pretense of dividing the pie "fairly" -- but, at least as proposed for Iraq,
was absurdly unfair, in addition to having (IIRC) zero popular support and hitting the re-set
button when it comes to reducing governmental legitimacy back to near-zero.
89 outraged
French journalists are on another (qatari) planet. They report that evryone stand with the us,
no mention ofthe Italian president talking with putin and give as a fact that the Turks have published
the results of the analysis. Well yesterday they were convinced that the us strike had destroyed
"20% of syrian aviation".
Former prez of msf ( doctors without borders) stated that use of chlorine in bombing is not forbidden...
and that even if the bombed chemicals belonged to the rebels it is a warcrime to bomb that knowingly!
he might not be stupid but i don't think he's particularly intelligent either. a few things that
lined up:
- professional dumb hick nikki haley (who, by the way, is actually indian and from a sikh family
so who knows if ingrained islamophobia is part of her "deal") and dick cheney's idiot brother
tillerson started off the confusion. maybe hanging out with the saudis and israelis at UN HQ made
her want to sit at the cool kids' table. tillerson is just an oil tard...but maybe he has other
agendas. just doesn't seem that sharp to me.
- chief of meritocracy jared kushner took some time off from being the jewish patrick bateman
to run around the globe with the same kind of psycho generals that are currently badgering his
dad-in-law into stupid decisions. they went to iraq and israel and all the fun places that make
you wish the US would just collapse already.
that and his public feud with bannon line up nicely and it seems obvious the globalists further
infected his tiny little yuppie mind with nonsense and shiny weapons and tales of anecdotal tragedies
that could have been averted if only the people had been bombed by us instead of shot by syrians.
trump for some reason thinks this kid has a mind of his own ("well, he did score my hot daughter...noice!")
and will definitely choose him over bannon cementing not only his closet globalism but his increasing
tendency to crap on anyone who got him elected, even the mercers with their piles of cash and
love of bannon's politics.
- the neocons/israel-firsters have lost patience now that the russians and syrians and their
allies have started to reach a plainly visible victory. not only did they stage (probably with
help from turkey) a blatantly fake attack and then had their media lackeys turn the Screech Factor
to 11, but they've seen how easy it was and simply cannot help themselves. i guess they haven't
gotten it out of their system with a full scale slaughter of gazans lately so they need to let
off steam by grabbing golan and any other territory they can grasp in their slimy claws (and people
thought west bank settlements were cheeky).
- "veterans today" is a bit of an odd site but they claim to have actually gone to the area
and confirmed the (possibly chlorine but definitely not sarin) attack was a turkey/al nusra joint.
they also claim that another is being filmed and planned with the white helmets and even a few
guys from reuters nearby. if they're not full of it (the article had no pictures or video and
was a bit rushed looking) then the next one will be the true "never again" moment that leads to
boots on the ground.
- speaking of which, sure it's a TOTAL coincidence that flynn was sacked for his pro-diplomacy
outlook vis a vis russia only to be replaced by an obvious lunatic like mcmaster. word on the
street is he's blatantly cooking intelligence before showing it to trump and wants 150k troops
on the ground by june for a full scale invasion. he's a real "jack d. ripper" type and looks like
he loves the taste of netanyahu's bum. watch out for this psycho.
so tl;dr = lots of moving parts and it would resemble keystone cops if it wasn't so terrifying.
thanks b.. good question and many interesting responses to your question.
i think the empire is coming apart personally.. trump will be the fall guy, but it will probably
hang in their for longer then his term, if he makes his term. the usa approach at this point seems
very chaotic at best.. unfortunately all hell could break lose at any moment, thanks the war party
that continues to guide the world into a ditch..
i don't believe trump and putin have got together to hatch a brilliant plan...that just doesn't
ring true to me. i do believe we continue to be in trouble on the planet and this is just the
latest installment we have to work thru. so much can go wrong, but one thing for sure - many folks
are going to wake up fast, if at all..
As long as b ignores central role of Israel in the Syrian War, he will continue to be lost in
seemingly chaotic developments, which to his defense is a bread and butter of MENA politics of
global proxies.
What if chaos was the real goal of this war?
Already Israel is safe from Syria and Egypt and even of war ends will be safe for decades.
If this war last another decade Iran will be exhausted, substantially weakened.
Of course this assumes US imperial dominance to continue while this is the biggest risk in
the entire mess, what makes Bibi a drunken gambler with the fate of Israeli nation which may not
even see celebration of 70.
Trump has entered political survival mode. From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides
strategy. That means some concessions will be made to neocons.
ToivoS@81 - "Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s
but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist)
into US foreign policy circles."
Your second sentence contradicts your first one if I'm reading that right. I agree, there is
little direct benefit to the US regarding access to oil and gas. But I would disagree the direct
interests of the US in the Middle East have any bearing here. Everything happening in the Middle
East (at least the view from under my tin-foil visor) seems to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia
(and Gulf cronies). Even the laughable claims of trying to "fight Islamic extremism" are not a
rational goal when Islamic extremists are being funded IN ORDER TO keep the US there. Israeli
and Saudi interests have an inordinate amount of influence on my government's foreign policy.
I like to throw around the word 'treason' but that's just useless. When the US population is brainwashed
into thinking Israeli and Saudi/GCC interests ARE US interests, then it seems like we (the US)
are somehow vaguely serving our own interests there when in reality we have - or should have -
none.
When some power-drunk delusional bastards think they're the world's cop, then you can manipulate
them with little effort by providing a suitable evil criminal gang that must be eliminated. You
know what suckers Americans are for demonization - it's almost cartoonish in it's effect.
Peter AU@76 - "Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?"
I think that was the plan at one time, but the Saudis/Qataris are pretty much hated by Iraq
today - something about funding head-choppers. I think they would have a much better luck running
it up through Syrian head-chopperistan and whatever Rojava is called today. That's why I keep
harping about the entire purpose of any 'government' in partitioned east Syria must have the authority
to sign oil and pipeline contracts that supersedes the authority of the Syrian government. If
that is not explicitly obtained, then the US. will simply assume it's there (like in Barzanistan)
and have their fake partition governments sign anyway. And since the Saudis already have a gas
pipeline and compressor stations nearly all the way to Jordan, it will be cheapier/easier to run
it up through Syria. That also benefits Israel - they do not want to pay for an underwater Leviathan
pipeline and want Leviathan gas intermingled with Qatari gas as far back in the pipeline as possible
(BDS and all). Jordan will support both - it will enjoy cheap, plentiful gas either way. Jordan
needs it for power generation.
Outlaw US Empire Imperial Policy hasn't changed; the clue is to look at the rest of the world
situation, and there it's easy to see that Full Spectrum Dominance is still the #1 policy goal.
By very openly declaring the Idlib incident to be a false flag with more expected, Putin torpedoed
anything Tillerson might have said of substance, while Iran and Russia escalate their military
efforts.
The US "strategy" reminds me of the fire bases they set up deep in VC territory and serviced
via UH-1s & CH-47s that proved to be a total failure. The Empire lacks the required number of
boots to properly occupy/pacify Syraq and eventually will be forced to completely withdraw; as
with Vietnam, it's just a matter of time. But will US military openly stand and fight with Daesh
and al-Ciada, or will such a choice provoke mutiny?
sTrumpet reminds me of W, but lacking the boots needed to fulfill the same policy goal mapped
out decades ago--Yinon. IMO, at the moment, the real, dangerous, conflict point is Korea. And
the wild card still remains China.
Suspect US warmongering may tone down quite a bit if military starts to take significant casualties.
neocons seem to implicitly assume that US losses will always be trivial.
Yet again the United States will be playing catch-up with the Russians and Syrians yet again.
The Syrians are removing the last block to an offensive against Idlib - the populations of Al-Fou'aa
and Kafraya are being exchanged for the populations of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, and rebel prisoners
currently in SAG prisons. Once the exchange is complete, there'll be no reason for the SAA not
to attack the rebels in Idlib.
The first batch of buses sent by the Syrian Government have arrived in besieged Madaya and
Al-Zabadani, Damascus Now reported this afternoon.
The buses are prepared to transport more than 2,500 residents and militants from the besieged
towns in rural Damascus to the Idlib Governorate, as part of the deal set forth by the Qatari
and Iranian governments.
In exchange for the 2,500 residents of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, more than 1,500 civilians
from besieged Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya will be transported from their villages to Damascus.
Once this exchange is made, the second phase of the agreement will reportedly begin with
the release of rebels from the Syrian government's prisons and the transportation of another
1,500 residents of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya from jihadist-held territory.
The first phase of this agreement is expected to commence in the coming hours, a government
source told Al-Masdar
Maybe Trump's policy for Syria just became irrelevant.
Trump is used to having brainstorming sessions to run his business and he welcomes many different
opinions. However, he allows these people to speak to the press and they give a wildly varying
position for the Administration.
He has allowed himself to be persuaded to have a strike on Syria but now it remains to be seen
how he will deal with other gas attacks because you know there will be many. He has painted himself
into a corner.
for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons
what would force trump, putin and xi to cooperate?
...the realization that the neocons are the worst thing to come
down the pike since the Nazis?
that theory is intolerable --and very scary-- to our resident
kommissars... but in terms of human survival, it makes sense,
and that scares our kommissars even more
.
what can our kommissars do to eliminate the possibility that
trump, putin and xi are cooperating?
...keeping in mind that it ought to be something that is televised
live, like the second impact at the twin towers
"for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons"
I don't see how that is even possible.
Where and how would this coordination have taken place? Every single bit of communication by
Trump has been monitored by the US intellegence agencies. If there was anything remotely close
to some sort of behind the scenes coordination with China and/or Russia Trump would be sititng
in jail with wackjob Hillary in the Oval Office.
The much simpler explanation is:
1. Trump, like anyone who knows nothing about Syria, sees reports of the US funding and aiding
jihadist terror groups. He makes completely reasonable comments about stopping those types of
activities with his administration
2. Trump being a political outsider lacks the army of political lackeys presidential cannidates
have when they take office
3. This lack of support has left Trump completley vunerable to the long time Washington players.
4. The neocons have relentless taken out Trumps political amateurs one by one to the point
we are now where he is almost entirely surrounded by them
5. The neocons are now feeding him a continuous stream of fake intel about Syria and other
hotspots around the world
I don't think it is because Trump is dumb. He simply is completely out of his leage in his
ability to take on the long time Washington powers. Previous administrations have come in with
an army of lackeys to defend the president and enforce the president's will upon the so called
deep state.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-11/what-reset-white-house-to-call-out-russia-s-fake-news-on-syria
"The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community
about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier
attacks," the dossier says. Another passage says Moscow's response to the April 4 incident "follows
a familiar pattern of Russia's response to egregious actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting
accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community." The dossier
also derided a "drumbeat of nonsensical claims" from Syria and its allies, a clear reference to
Russia....
Since everyone is throwing their hat into the ring, here is my take:
US military has a thing about initiating conflict when world leaders are in close proximity.
If you recall, at the start of the Georgia-Russia conflict, world leaders (including Bush and
Putin) were gathered in China for the summer Olympics. Putin immediately left and returned to
Moscow to administer to the engagement while Bush stayed behind to get in close with the women's
beach volleyball team.
The decision to initiate combat was not made by Saakashvili alone. He was operating under the
umbrella of the world's only super power, i.e., with US blessing. Putin knew that Bush knew, but
put an overwhelming stop to all that. Never the less, combat was commenced at the time when world
leaders were gathered together in China.
Now we have a situation in which the Chinese leader is visiting with Trump (all off the record)
with the hope of coming to some kind of understanding perhaps, and US military initiates attack
against Syria. There is a message US is sending here with regard to US intensions. The timing
is not coincidental but intentional. I haven't put my finger on it.
And I don't believe Trump (at this time) is thinking about re-election. He's too busy hoping
to make it through this first year.
Syria claims they were monitoring a warehouse thought to belong to ISIS. It observed increase
in amount of traffic coming and going, into and out of said facility. It decides to attack and
explodes CW being stored there.
But there was some thing else going on there important enough that the US thought it had to
retaliate. I don't believe it was CW alone nor do I believe it was pics of innocent children.
It's not the act but the message it sends that one must discern with care. From what I've read,
US intelligence is lacking in the ME in that much of what gets reported as classified is not much
more that paper clippings. Little in the way of person-to-person contacts.
I don't know where I'm going with all of this but it appears that increased chaos is indeed
the end game.
The people crying out for more strikes are delusional.
Syria will be partitioned, it's simply not a viable country anymore, given Arabs' clannishness,
susceptibility to foreign intrigue and the existing animosity between the various groups. Now
is the time for the West to insert 50k soldiers into the ISIS country (the mooted 150 000 US soldiers
is a pie in the sky - America doesn't have those) and start bleeding - and negotiating the contours
of the partition. Russians already got what they came for, and now they wait the rest of the gang
to stake their claims. People in the West should listen to what the King of Jordan - a very good
personal friend of Putin - had said recently, namely that in Moscow's mind the issue of Syria
is inextricably linked to the issue of Crimea and the Ukraine. He knows how it works. And Trump
did 180 on Syria during his visit. The West will resist Syria-Ukraine linkage, but it can't do
it forever. Russia simply won't agree to anything until that's achieved. What's good for the goose
(Syria) must be good for the gander (Ukraine). The issues are similar, whatever others may say.
As for Trump, he wants to put his soldiers into the Syrian desert (Latakia, Tartus and Damascus
are in the Russian domain), but can't because US public opinion is hostile to the idea. The latter
can be gradually molded by the mounting hysteria, which is exactly what's happening.
I think the plan is to up the ante on what was proposed in backchannels during the transition/flynn
debacle - supposedly they were trying to make a deal of good relations with Russia and sanctions
removal in exchange for russia abandoning support for Syria and Iran. Of course, that failed.
So now I think the chem weapons pretense is like some face-saving 'opportunity', or politial excuse
for putin to back out from supporting assad, and at the same time a thinly veiled threat, that
more sanctions could come "if" its determined Russia facilitated or had some foreknowledge since
they were "responsible" for ensuring that Assad's stockpiles were destroyed. They've been careful
not to vindicate or blame Russia, to keep the door open, they are waiting for their next move.
Thats entirely ludicrous of course, but from the mirrored exceptionalist bubble that the US
establishment operates out of, I'm sure its 'the dealmaker's most brilliant idea ever.
It seems they have more false flag attacks like this scheduled to occur as Putin stated, and
as one could almost read from Mathis' nervous lips during his press conference today.
"Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
The common theme with Trump, Tillerson, Haley is that the US is prepared to act bilaterally.
Self appointed sheriff. Above the UN.
President TrumpVerified account @POTUS 7h7 hours ago
More
North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we
will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.
Tillerson.. "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday that the U.S. will stand up to
anyone who commits crimes against innocent people"
Haley .. "When the U.N. consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times
in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,"
I think Trump works on hunches. I think he goes to bed with a question and wakes up with an
answer. Israel Shamir wrote about the hunch aspect of Trump. Nothing is thought out logically.
It is the opposite of the academic approach and appears to have yielded much success for him in
his business and TV life. But international politics and economics is vast and requires years
of study. There is no easy way. The people who really control things have covered up their moves
and each one has to be uncovered through much research. Trump relies on people rather than books.
He relied on Bannon for election strategy and was smack on. But now he is up against masters like
Putin, Netanyahu and Xi Jinping and he is lost. So he goes back to ratings; what gets good ratings
as a sort of feel-good factor like a drinker with his bottle, like a baby with its milk.
One thing that stuck in my mind about FDR was a long period of illness in the 1920s and how
he devoured books, the better to prepare him for the massive changes he was about to bring in.
Trump allows the neocons to advise hime to strike and to celebrate the strike.
Slowly, the world comes to realise the Syrians did not have the chemicals and did not use them
against their own people.
As this slowly is being realised, various others who are against Trump on the inside are exposed.
Then Trump can get up and say he was misinformed and the various traitors and mis-informers will
have to go.
This would include a massive re-alignment of intelligence agencies (abolish the CIA).
It would also expose the media who have been complicit in their support of the strife for many
decades.
All pre-organised with Russian help to identify a airbase that had no significant assets ...
The reality is that God Emporer master 5d chess player is nothing more than an experienced
businessman who is completely out of his element in Washington politics and is in the process
of being eaten alive by the neocon establisment.
Trump's failure and capture by the Washington establishment is a perfect example of the folly
of populists screaming for term limits. You get politcal amateurs who get chewed up and spit out
by the unelected state actors who have had decades of experience.
Trump seems to be keen on taking Intelligence away from civilians like Susan Rice, and letting
those who know what a battlefield looks like advise him. He is essentially depriving foreign banks
and multinational corporations to use the US for their Nation Building, i.e. to have us pay for
it with our taxes, and use our soldiers as cannon fodder.
So he made a bold stroke. Some chats with the presidents of Russia, China, Syria, and the King
of Jordan, for instance, but not our so-called allies in NATO. It also allows him to smoke out
the snakes here and elsewhere. Of course for the trick to work, various leaders had to talk tough
and condemn Trump's action.
@95 sb, 'Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with
a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.'
we've all said that for some time now ... but if the g7 meeting means that the countries ...
other than the poodles in the uk, of course ... are seeing themselves as the accomplices of the
usofa in the crytal ball, and not liking it at all, then maybe 'Countries [have really, finally
come to understand that they] just have no reason left to ally with the US'.
can you establish benevolent global hegemony by killing anyone who resists?
so far, the neocon project has wrecked country after country, caused hundreds of thousands
of needless deaths, and millions of refugees
where's the benevolence in that?
.
and don't people like Russians and Chinese have a right to
be alarmed? ...especially in light of the US's nuclear primacy policy, which is based on nuke
first strikes so
overwhelming that Russia and china are unable to retaliate
it's no wonder, considering the neocpns' ambitions, performance and policies, that world leaders
would cooperate to rid the world of neocons, is it?
BARTIROMO: You redirected navy ships to go toward the Korean Peninsula. What we are doing right
now in terms of North Korea?
TRUMP: You never know, do you? You never know.
BARTIROMO: That's all (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: You know I don't think about the military.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
TRUMP: I'm not like Obama, where they talk about in four months we're waiting -- we're going
to hit Mosul.
BARTIROMO: Right.
TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen -- look, they're still
fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months
and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful.
We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell
you. And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong
thing. He is doing the wrong thing.
BARTIROMO: Do you...
TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.
BARTIROMO: -- do you think he's mentally fit?
TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing.
Ie, why was the go-ahead given on the CW False Flag in terms of it's timing.
It could be as simple as trying to swing the French Election.
Pro NATO (Macron & Fillon) against Anti-NATO (Le Pen & Melenchon).
If either of the Anti-NATO candidates were to become President there's absolutely no doubt
they would split NATO at the first sign of conflict with Russia - which could be imminent.
What better way to tie their hands than attack Syria until there is a forceful Russian military
response, Article 5 is invoked, and Hollande goes along with it full boar as one of his last acts.
The hands of the next French President are essentially tied at that point - even better (from
that point of view) if some French soldiers are inserted into the conflict and perhaps killed).
How could a new President possibly climb down from that policy position? How could Le Pen or
Melenchon argue that France should not go along with the invoking of Article 5?
Would this really play well with the French voting public to be seen as "abandoning" long-held
NATO allies in their time of need?
Surely it would torpedo their candidatures - unless of course they are the two in the run-off
- which is possible.
Speaking to young French voters recently (in their early 20s) - they do not like Macron - they
see him as a fake, a phony, a creep. They won't be voting for him - and they're from Paris.
@122 telescope.. some of what you say i agree with and some not!
@ 124 peter au.. i think what you point out is all a given.. the exceptional warmongering nation
will not be deterred regardless just how effective the propaganda machine is... this is why i
believe we are in a more dangerous place now then ever before. even when the propaganda is breaking
apart, all parties opposed to the war party will have to remain fully prepared for more war..lousy
actors playing a bad hand with the 'exceptional warmongering' status on shaky ground..
@132 jfl... those poodles are looking into something more like a crystal meth ball, then an
actual crystal ball.. if they weren't so hooked on the crack, they would have been calling it
quits on their bad habit of aligning with the exceptional warmongering nation, but alas - they
are too addicted to the crack..
@106 alaric, 'From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy.'
i think viewing tee-rump as an american erdogan is quite apt. except that he's not as smart
as erodogan, certainly not as observant or well-studied.
@127 swmel
that's quite an agile acrobatic performance. i think you're right as far as tee-rump's letting
his 'apprentices' try 'their' plans and then blaming and firing those whose efforts don't work
out. but trump works on the
31st floor . and he
very well knows there are people at work on the floors above him - the bankers, in his business
career - whom he must please in order to be allowed to continue. and his plan is to continue.
business career, political career ... same thing.
The mainstream media more or less gave us an explanation of what the US cruise missile attack
on Syria was all about - to be regarded as a 'player' in the Syrian theatre. That may seem trivial
& petty on the surface, but think again, things are often not what they appear. The attack was
a demonstration effect, which many US bombing attack often are, they are sending a message that
the US deployment with the Kurds (YPG/SDF) in the North is the beginning of Syria's partition.
This will be backed up by more heavy US military engagement, hence the cruise missile attack.
That's why Russia responded so vociferously, they know this was not for show as Thierry Meyssan
& others have suggested, it was just made to look that way because for starters the US has chosen
not to escalate, but to warn. That is why they have followed up with threats of further attacks,
because the first was just a taste, but the next will be more strategic & will target the SAA
&/or vital state infrastructure. Partition of Syria is key, because at the heart of all of this
is the dissolution of all Middle Eastern states so as to facilitate Israeli expansion.
Trump has told Fox that he's not going into Syria in an interview that airs in the morning. I
hope that Tillerson got the memo before he talks to Lavrov.
Putin has publicly made the case for a false flag. The G7 boys have denied Tillerson the kind
of wholehearted support he was hoping for by wanting an investigation before any punitive actions
are taken against Syria or Russia. It's been put out there while the world is totally focused
on events so there's no chance the MSM can ignore it. There will be no UN sanctioned attack on
Syria or Assad without doing the dance. Unless Trump goes rogue.
The response to the Tomahawks was mostly positive in the West. Trump finally got some positive
press and Russiagate was like it never happened. I think even Putin was perfectly happy to let
him have one kick at the cat so he didn't look like a pussy. But the followup babel of tweets
and sound bytes about everything from Russian involvement to the necessity of removing Assad was
sure to up the ante. I think the Tillerson-Lavrov meeting is critical. I hope that Putin finds
time to meet with Tillerson.
The business on the Korean Peninsula is the more worrisome of the two crises. Now there's two
unpredictable leaders fixin' to kick ass and take names. There can't be any winners over there.
It blows my mind that these vaunted generals have allowed Trump and the US to find themselves
at loggerheads with so many enemies at once. I thought these fucking clowns went to West Point.
It's been a hell of a ride from non-intervention to taking on half the world. And we only just
got started.
There used to be a pool of seasoned diplomats to try to see if there were ways to avoid sabre-rattling
and confrontation. But they're all gone. All that's left is generals and CEOs. And the generals
seem to be in the catbird seat.
There's some that are still carrying water for Trump. They say the deep state has him snookered.
Well, Trump is the deep state or trying very hard to be part of it. He owns this debacle. Lets
hope he's not the fucking antichrist, I'm not up for getting raptured.
I'll help you out. Syria doesn't matter. Whatever happened with the gas and its aftermath doesn't
matter. Forget Syria.
Instead think about Iran. Trump is going to destroy Iran and in so doing will put an end to
China's New Silk Road and will also take out a large marginal supplier of oil to the world market
and so oil prices will recover. Now if Trump is thinking in such strategic terms I have no clue.
It matters not.
the talk of 'submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier' on their
way towards north korea is interesting. the
Syrian Tomahawk Strike review had an interesting line ...
This should also tell us how useful (or useless, as the case may be) our Virginia class submarines
that carry only 12 Tomahawks will be – not very. It would have required five subs to carry
out this attack and this was only a partial attack against a small airfield. Those who believe
that our subs will constitute a significant land strike capability are mistaken. The subs are
more likely to be used as snipers, taking out smaller, undefended targets. The retirement without
replacement of our four SSGNs which each carried 154 Tomahawks may come to be viewed as a mistake.
... i wonder if those 'four SSGNs' (
Ohio, Michigan, Florida,
and Georgia ?) is a done deal, or whether one or more might be sailing beneath waves toward
north korea?
fresh from his 'triumph' and accompanying great reviews from his syrian cruise missle performance,
is he about the try an encore, on a much larger scale, in north korea?
silly to point out that it's irrational. the play's the thing! think of the curtain calls for
this one!
WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...
"A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical
attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."
"The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source videos, reporting,
imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical attack was a regime attack."
"I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed reporters
on background Tuesday said."
FUNNY THAT...
Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that
Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack
"A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media
is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of
the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied
by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with
its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under
any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the
local population."
FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -
UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood trial on terror
offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter John Cantlie'
"Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his Twitter account
after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all with narrow, pinpoint pupils
that did not respond to light."
"The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two journalists
- Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was released after the trial collapsed
when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were able to give evidence."
THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -
"The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing that is
breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose in the midst of
that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we addressed that militarily
but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...
To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin
social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that
is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on
terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend
propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys
and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time
deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah,
blah blah F'ing bullshit!
Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB lied today.
LIED LIED LIED.
@141 "I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson."
Putin will certainly be able to find the time. It depends what message Tillerson has come to
deliver. Putin will need to know that before he agrees to any meeting. Tillerson must first have
a friendly chat with Lavrov. Putin will probably be listening in.
No, there isn't a new policy in place. The target has been the Iranian hegemonic ambition, not
Assad. It's the same policy as before. The plan is the same: break up Syria (and Iraq). The break-up
takes places in stages and all the players attempt to force each other's hand, hence the ever-expanding
chaos. The north of Syria is going to be a part of the future Kurdistan, the east is going to
be part of an independent Sunni state. Finally, the west was destined to shape the new Syria,
which would include most of the country's territory, but this plan was botched after the rise
of Daesh and the Russian intervention in Assad's favor. What I describe is a slight amendment
on the borders proposed
here ; the
blue-colored "Sunni Iraq" state between Baghdad and the (still current) Syrian border and the
Kurds will have more Syrian territory than the map depicts. As you will notice, the map is American-made.
That's the plan, broadly speaking and Trump's bombing of Assad's airfield is another move in the
framework defined by this plan.
Trump has chosen to use the opportunity offered by the sad event of last week, the actual origin
of which is hotly debated, to unleash a warning strike to Iran. Israel is the only US ally which
is not openly opposed to the plan I describe above, because it will guarantee to a large extent
its security. In fact Israel wants an independent Kurdistan; such a country will provide strategic
depth to Israel. The Turks don't like it for obvious reasons, as well as the Saudis. The Iranians
will be affected too by an independent Kurdistan, but they have not shied from the opportunity
to extend their sphere of influence to Iraq and to cement and broaden their pre-existent influence
in the Mediterranean.
A relevant digression: The reason the Saudis invaded Yemen is that they want to foil the Iranian
attempt to establish strategic maritime connection between Iran and its Mediterranean proxies
by controlling the entrance to the Red Sea. Remember that the plan is to have a Sunni state and
Kurdistan between Shiite-controlled Iraq and Assad's territories and Lebanon, so land is a no-go
for the Iranians at this point.
The Israelis do not want Iran to have so much influence that the obstacles placed deliberately
in its path will not foil its hegemonic tendencies. Of course, the Israelis need any Sunni hegemonic
tendencies to be in check, too. Remember, the map provides for territorial interruption to the
perpendicular Sunni axis starting from Turkey and ending at the Gulf of Aden (which is Kurdistan),
as well as for an interruption of the horizontal Shia axis of the region (the Sunni state and
Kurdistan). Apparently the Persians have been doing rather well for themselves in Syria and Trump
was in all probability advised to grasp the opportunity to remind them that the reality that is
taking shape in that part of the world will have to follow the provisions of the mentioned map.
This account also explains why the Israelis were fast to declare that it was Assad's Syrian Arab
Republic which was behind the attacks with chemical weapons: the Israelis want to see the American
plan implemented, not foiled. It also explains Russia's gift to Israel: it was a message of the
type "we respect your concerns, but keep out of this". You see, if Israel accepted the Russian
gift, it would de facto enter the current Syrian fray (as a beneficiary); this is not what Israel
should want and this is also not what the US have planned for Israel (in order to keep it safe).
For the US Israel and Palestine are a different matter. This is depicted in the map of the new
Middle East as no radical border changes; by accepting Russia's gift the Israelis would show themselves
to be rather short-sighted, something which would cause the US to discipline it.
So there is no new policy, just a different way of moving the pieces on the chessboard - Obama's
way was far subtler.
There is no fundamental change in Syria or the Middle East. The basic plan is to break everyone
up into small competing pieces. Divide and Rule. The essense of the Odin Plan and the long proven
tactic of British Colonialism.
Trumps a puppet. Compromised and controlled asset of the neocon faction of the Deep State.
He may have been forced to run or face losing all to the Rico Act due to his many mob connections.
Surveillance in the 21st century means pretty much anyone is vulnerable, but Trump especially.
Russians call it Kompromat,
In any case, we cant say his turn around is real or not. Perhaps just scripted. Said what he
needed to say to get elected with help from Comey. Needed a valid reason to explain the turnaround
other than gross deception which was anticipated , so we had this Putin connection which was manufactured
and engineered by the Deep State , and Trump willingly went along calling for Putin to help get
the emails and appointing some pro-russian cabinet members who would be sacrificed. All a sham.
He does have Russian connections but its the Russian Mafia and not Putin. Some of these guys deal
with Putin out of self preservation but all want him gone. Many are Isreali as well or have ties
to Israel.
US is strongly allied with British and Israeli interests in the region. This alliance is so
strong one may consider the trio as one entity. Its been that way since 1917 when we went to War
for the British and the future Israel.
Now how does the script read for Syria in coming years?. Perhaps only Hollywood knows. In the
long term Syria, Lebanon, Iran will be carved up with regime changes in Egypt and Turkey. Outside
the region conflict with China over North Korea and Russia over Ukraine/Crimea is possible but
I doubt anyone is foolish enough to allow escalation to WWIII
And obviously there are many more false flags to come since people refuse to believe in them
unless MSM spells it out for them, and they won't.
Theory 1: Obama deftly played the CIA/State and DoD against each other, limiting their lust for
bloodshed and chaos in Syria by putting their proxies at odds with each other. Trump, in his clumsiness
thought giving the DoD a free hand would speed up the Defeat of ISIS and make him look good.
But the CIA and Neocons kept pushing the Russia angle, and he's too petty a person to sweat
out the false accusations, so he "does something."
Theory 2: The US has gone full North Korea, "rabid dog" mode where they just lash out violently
at random to make it appear as if they have more power and control of a situation, when in truth
they are at the mercy of many layers of facts and realities.
We know little about the relationship between actors moving in the shadows and anything revealed
is increasingly cartoonish and staged for public consumption. That Assad would use WMD at this
point is as ridiculous as the damage caused by the supposed launch of 59 tomahawks. In that sense
it looks like this is a wag the dog moment to distract from domestic issues. But there are also
likely connections with recent events in Syria. IDF jets have been bombing Syria more lately for
some reason and one or more jets may have been downed a few weeks ago. The progress against ISIS
in eastern Allepo seems to have unnerved Assad's opponents who have been doing everything possible
to draw key resources like Tiger Forces away from this front and down to Hama. Russian Kalibr
cruise missiles were launched with little fanfare and no announced targets a couple of weeks ago
(I think I have my timing right). The Russians never scream about their targets or successes with
these cruise missile attacks, but it seems they reserve these for serious targets. If this weeks
events were not a wag the dog distraction then something valuable certainly seems to have been
lost or about to be lost to set off this reaction. Connecting sparse dots is difficult but the
dots are there to be connected.
"... Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there. ..."
"... "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons]," ..."
"... In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump. ..."
Vladimir Putin
has deepened his support of the Syrian regime, claiming its opponents planned false-flag chemical
weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.
The Russian president's predictions on Tuesday of an escalation in the Syrian war involving more
use of chemical weapons came as US officials provided further details of what they insist was a sarin
attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces against civilians on 4 April, and accused Moscow of a cover-up
and possible complicity.
The hardening of the Kremlin's position, and its denial of Assad's responsibility, accelerated
a tailspin in US-Russian relations, just as the US secretary of state,
Rex Tillerson , arrived
in Moscow for direct talks.
Tillerson had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned
the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However,
G7 foreign ministers were divided
over possible next steps and refused to back a British call for fresh sanctions.
Putin said western and Turkish accusations that Syria's government dropped the nerve agent that
killed dozens of civilians in Idlib earlier this month were comparable to the now-discredited claim
that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"It reminds me of the events in 2003 when US envoys to the security council were demonstrating
what they said were chemical weapons found in Iraq," the president told reporters on Tuesday. "We
have seen it all already."
Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on
Syria , and that there were
plans to fake chemical attacks there.
He insisted that Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow
had information "from different sources" that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging
the US into the conflict.
"We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria,
including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance
and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons],"
he said, without offering any proof for the assertion. Putin predicted such fake attacks would
be used to justify further US missile strikes on the regime, like the attack on Shayrat air force
base on Friday.
Senior White House officials said that Syrian military officers involved in the regime's chemical
weapons programme were at the Shayrat base ahead of and on the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack, which
they claimed was carried out by a Syrian air force Su-22 warplane, dropping at least one munition
containing sarin nerve agent.
One official said that there was "no consensus based on the information we have" of direct Russian
complicity, but pointed out that the Russian and Syrian military had a long history of close cooperation
and that Russian troops were at Shayrat base at the time of the attack.
In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack,
and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with
Donald Trump.
"... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
"... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
"... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history.
Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country,
President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical
attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to
happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles
(at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.
President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack
Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack
is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of
inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest."
Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on
the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.
From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about
the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as
he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks
regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military
advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA
-- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.
Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of
course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied
us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.
Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground
offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?
The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But
we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US
bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed
by poison gas or by a US missile?
What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison
gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow
claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone
in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move.
It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.
Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in
reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our
Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding
an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!
"... Trump doesn't have any long-term strategy with Syria? Neither did Obama whose strategy was apparently to let the war burn itself out and finally stop when everyone is either dead or have fled the country. Did Krugman criticize Obama's strategy? (and maybe Obama's strategy was the least worst option, better than invasion and war.) ..."
"... more like centrist vs centrist. bernie says nice soothing words (free college!, free healthcare!) but is just as much of a capitalist as krugman. ..."
"... who appointed the USA world police? and why would they do this after this nation has slaughtered millions of innocent civilians? ..."
"... The best thing the USA can do to promote peace and stability is to dismantle its brutal thuggish military. ..."
"... This is an attempt to oust Assad with a false flag. The US should cut off any more 9/11 observances, it is advancing bin Laden's jihad. ..."
"... Mr. Trump is clearly incapable of running any business besides his Mar a Lago Golf Club. This is his problem. However, I really cannot understand how the "elites" seams not to notice. This experiment will turn out very costly for everyone. ..."
Yeah doesn't seem like Putin is running Trump even if Trump is corrupt as hell.
Trump doesn't have any long-term strategy with Syria? Neither did Obama whose strategy
was apparently to let the war burn itself out and finally stop when everyone is either dead or
have fled the country. Did Krugman criticize Obama's strategy? (and maybe Obama's strategy was
the least worst option, better than invasion and war.)
Mr. Trump is clearly incapable of running any business besides his Mar a Lago Golf Club.
This is his problem. However, I really cannot understand how the "elites" seams not to notice.
This experiment will turn out very costly for everyone.
"... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
"... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
"... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
"... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
"... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province,
possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the
government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560"
name="I1">
"We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call
it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus.
They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said
at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.
Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical
weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.
The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles
at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.
"President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the
presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq
and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance
of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.
It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it
will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.
"The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this
kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer
said Monday.
Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that
the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.
"We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international
community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results
of such a probe," he said.
A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff,
which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern
Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.
"These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of
more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey
Rudskoy, the head of Operations.
YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain
should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This
jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed
execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL
OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL.
NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.
From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded
and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John
Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed
during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.
Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this
is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.
Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people,
and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan
should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because
of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence
and National Security.
If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)
These ZioNeoConFascist have crossed The American Patriots "Red Line."
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Deep State Psychopaths have been & are "Going All In."
This is Irrefutably, Absolutely the Last chance of Peacefully, Diplomatically walking away
from a Situational Inter National Crises of which the CIA / Deep State Dept is Gulty of causing.
The Global Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Crime Syndicate has been exposed for
all the World to See.
The Emperor is Stark Naked & the World doesn't seen to Care.
The Deception that was once "Hidden in plain view" is now Globally Tyrannically Lawlessly open
for all the World to See.
Proof that the dysfunctional element is the controlling element . But don't assume the other
players will not turn dysfunctional. They know the endgame goes all the way to Iran. They will
have to draw a line sooner or later.
War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002,
that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state
in the 'American Century'.
If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained
in Aleppo!
It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as
president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's
"Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with
no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad
must go."
Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio
today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:
The president has just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living
memory – and he does so with little credibility or legitimacy
It may be hard to believe, but Donald Trump is even more simplistic than George W Bush in matters
of war. George W Bush enjoyed all the certainty of a very simple man: you were either with us or
against us, good or evil, marching for democracy or plotting terrorist attacks.
Yet Donald Trump manages to make Bush look like Baron von Metternich. He just launched military strikes
against a brutal Syrian regime he used to describe as "NOT our problem".
Yes, Donald Trump is a great big bag of contradictions and he just swaggered his way into the
single most complex civil war in living memory – a war that is even more complicated than raising
a high-rise hotel in a foreign capital.
At least Bush took more than a year after 9/11 before he invaded Iraq. Trump hasn't reached the 100-day
mark and he's already walking into his own quagmire.
Going from dangerous to lethal - he's graduated to blindly lobbing bombs at foreign countries
for reasons he doesn't fully understand and causing consequences he'll never comprehend.
Helping to further destabilise one of the most dangerous regions in terms of international terrorism
is a good thing? If Assad is toppled today the people placed to fill the vacuum are some of the
most abhorrent Wahhabist nutters you could imagine. The secular rebels such as they were have
either been killed or surpassed in power and influence, several years ago by now. Atrocities committed
by Assad need to be dealt with by international courts following the managed conclusion of the
war.
What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that
hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging
the suffering of the Syrian people.
I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding
that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot
say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly
haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that
I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would
gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks?
That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
The Donald's missile "attack" on Syria's al-Shairat
air base is surely the most impetuous, thoughtless, reckless and stupid act from
the Oval Office that we can remember – and that covers 50 years at least. And we
put "attack" in quotes because it's now evident that virtually every one of those
$1.4 million per copy Tomahawks amounted to a big fat nothing-burger.
To wit, 36 of the 59 missile were duds and landed somewhere that was not the
al-Shairat air base, including a nearby village where apparently a number of
civilians were killed. The 23 that did hit the base actually missed the main
runway, which, by the way, was back in operation launching Syrian air force
sorties within 24 hours. None of Assad's operational warplanes were hit, either –
just a handful of old MIG-23s that have apparently long been languishing in the
base's "repair" boneyard.
Yes, the Donald's sharpshooters did annihilate several glorified Butler
buildings, otherwise referred to as "hangars", and a few fuel tanks – the better
for some post-attack fireworks to be posted to the War Channels (CNN, MSNBC and
Fox).
But what the Tomahawks surely did not hit was the chemical weapons storage
facilities alleged by the Pentagon to be at the base. With Washington's satellites
monitoring al-Shairat like a cloud of bumble bees, there was not a whit of
evidence of Syrian personnel running around with gas masks after the missiles hit.
Had there been, the War Channels would have been playing it in an endless loop
all weekend. Naturally, the Pentagon says these apparently non-existent stores
weren't even targeted owing to humanitarian (?) reasons.
Right, copy that!
Worse, launching this feckless attack in the midst of sharing Caesar salad with
the leader of China was surely an amateur ploy right out of the pages of The
Apprentice. That's because within 24 hours of Xi Jinping's departure from what
will now be known as War-A-Lago, the Syrian air force had not only resumed
launches from the base, but was actually bombing the very site of the original
offense at Khan Sheikhoun!
Upon hearing the news, China's supreme leader would have presumably browned his
Changshan (traditional tunic) in the fear of it – save for the fact that he is the
reincarnation of Mao Tse-tung in a business suit, and just as ruthless.
That gets us, of course, to the purpose of attacking any sovereign government
that has not attacked or threatened America; and, most especially, one waging a
determined fight against the one threat to America's peace of mind, if not actual
physical security, extant on the planet today.
That is, the radical jihadist head-choppers of ISIS, and particularly the al-Nusra
terrorists desperately holed up in their last redoubt in Idlib province. Even if
Assad had used chemical weapons – and there is zero proof he did – what possible
purpose was there in a pinprick attack on Assad's military capability that was
hailed by jihadists all over Syria and the greater Middle East?
Does the Donald really wish to attack both sides in the most tangled, bloody,
sectarian and convoluted civil war in modern history – a course of action he has
long, and rightly, criticized.
Did he really reverse in a mere two days, the anti- "regime change" line he had
held for years? And one he had wielded to great effect with a "don't do it" tweet
storm in August 2013 in the wake of what now is clear had been a false flag
chemical attack staged by radical jihadists at Ghouta designed to lure Obama into
attacking the regime?
The weekend talk show huffing and puffing by Secretary Tillerson and the
ignorant little nincompoop he appointed as UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, would leave
you to guess, but not really. At the time of the attack Thursday evening,
Administration spokesmen made it clear that the attack was "punishment" for
Assad's violation of international norms about the fair way to kill civilians when
waging urban warfare.
You see, dropping white phosphorous, which is a second cousin of sarin gas, as
Washington did on Fallujah is apparently OK. The same goes for drone attacks and
percussion bombs on civilian targets, as Washington has been doing throughout the
better part of the Middle East for much of the last two decades.
But this was different. Why, according to the self-appointed tribunes of the
moral high ground at the editorial pages of the
New York Times
, Assad's
attack on Khan Sheikhoun was so heinous that it cried out for punishment.
So then and there, Donald J. Trump appointed himself the Empire's
Spanker-in-Chief, and thereby destroyed what remained of his stillborn Presidency.
Indeed, it will be all downhill from here because the Deep Steep now most
assuredly has the Donald by his stubby.
Still, the fact that Donald Trump has now made himself a laughingstock by
putting what amounted to a wimpy birch-switch to Bashar's behind, does raise a
crucial question. If Trump is to be praised – as the mainstream media did
incessantly since Thursday night – for stepping up as Spanker-in-Chief, why stop
with Assad?
How about his recent visitor to the Oval Office, General Sisi of Egypt? The
latter has put thousands of his political enemies to death or in jail or through
unspeakable torture. But rather than getting the birch switch, Sisi got a ringing
endorsement from the Donald for his regime of terror and assurance that
Washington's $1.5 billion annual stipend to the Egyptian military would be his for
the duration.
Then again, why was the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman grinning like a
Cheshire cat after his Oval Office meeting with the Donald. He should have been
grimacing in agony after several hundred Saudi-style lashes for conducting what
amounts to a genocidal campaign against the civilian population of Yemen.
So far there have been more than 10,000 civilian casualties – including 4,000
dead men, women and children who were at the receiving end of Saudi bombs and
missiles. And some of the latter were Textron-supplied "percussion" bombs which
upon impact leave behind hundreds of unexploded bomblets disguised as
brightly-colored balls, toys and trinkets.
Needless to say, they do not include a warning label in Arabic or otherwise
saying "keep out of the reach of children". The proof of that is dozens of dead
and maimed children who picked up the "toys" supplied by the war criminal pictured
below (left side of the photo).
The worst part of the Donald's spanking campaign, of course, is that the White House has
not offered one iota of proof that Assad did it. Nor has it even attempted to
refute the exceedingly plausible Russian-Syrian claim that the regime's bombing
raid in the heart of Nusra Front's last remaining occupied territory hit a weapons
depot where the jihadists were storing not only conventional ammo, but possibly
manufacturing projectiles stuffed with chemical agents, too.
Do ya think that the Donald could have kept his birch switch in the drawer for
at least a few days so that an impartial international inspection team could have
examined the site and the victims?
In fact, retired DIA Colonel Patrick Lang gave us a roadmap to what may
actually have happened based on his own sources in the intelligence community. In
the past his credibility has been excellent, and his story makes far more sense
than the White House's. That is, on the verge of victory over the jihadists and
only days after the Trump Administration threw in the towel on regime change,
Assad committed an act of complete insanity:
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air
Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn
that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical
weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.
The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a
process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line
that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian
air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target
in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic
rebels.
The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All
involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen.
Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out
that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were
deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they
followed the wind and killed civilians.
There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a
nearby village and caused casualties.
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first
responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they
would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through
"Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would
occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense
Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact,
Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.
This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated
George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003.
Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact.
Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no
chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.
So given that very plausible alternative possibility, why not at least have an
Adlai Stevenson moment? That's when President Kennedy's UN Ambassador stood before
the entire world and showed dramatic reconnaissance photos proving the Soviets had
indeed placed intermediate range missile batteries in Cuba.
By contrast, the Deep State's octopus of secrecy today hides behind the
pathetic excuse that it must protect its "sources and methods" at all hazards.
Therefore it can only "assess" and "judge" out loud that the bad guys actually did
it. Meanwhile, the Congress, the American public and the rest of the world should
take their word for it that the intelligence community (IC) has the hard evidence.
Well, FU, IC.
For crying out loud, the entire world – and most especially the Russians, Assad
regime and assorted other purported malefactors – knows that the skies of the
planet are swarming with US intelligence satellites. And that NSA's digital blood
funnel, to borrow Matt Taibbi's felicitous description of Goldman Sachs in another
context, has penetrated every nod, switching center and backdoor of the entire
global communications grid.
So exactly nothing is being protected by Washington's refusal to stump up the
SIGINT (signals intelligence) proof if they've got it.
That's exactly what didn't happen, of course, back in August 2013 when the
jihadists pulled a similar false flag to lure Obama into a similar attack. At the
time, the White House released a four-page, evidence-free paper pinning the blame
squarely on Assad in what it called a "government assessment" because even the IC
would not vouch for it.
Needless to say, not a shred of SIGINT was ever released to prove the White
House contentions – save for an obvious leak a few days after the event to the
ever complaint New York Times. The latter's rewrite of their leaked White House
talking points claimed that an assessment of the chemical rocket's trajectory
found at the site proved the sarin-carrying missiles were fired from deep in
government controlled territory more than
12 kilometers away
.
As it happened, an international arms control expert and leading MIT scientist
in the field, teamed up shortly thereafter to prove from the primitive rockets
examined by international inspectors after the attack that they could have had a
trajectory of no more than
2 kilometers
. That is, they were fired
from the heart of jihadist controlled territory in the very villages where the
horrific sarin gas attack occurred.
As Philippe Lemonoine summarized in a recent post, the evidence has only gotten
even more unequivocal since then:
Back in 2013, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the Independent International
Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (IICISAR) and the former Chief
Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
told
the BBC that
"what appears to our investigations [is] that [chemical weapons were] used by the
opponents, by the rebels and we have no indication at all that the authorities
of the Syrian government have used chemical weapons". To be sure, she indicated
that she was only talking about their preliminary findings and, when the IICISAR
published its
report
a month later, it didn't assign responsibility to anyone. Del Ponte
reiterated her claims after the report was published in another
interview
to Euronews
and said that she didn't regret making them.
There is still more to cast doubt on the hypothesis that Assad was behind
the attack in Ghouta. Seymour Hersh, a famous investigative journalist who, among
other thing, broke the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal, argued in two
detailed
articles
published
a few months after the attack that Turkey provided sarin to Syrian
rebels. According to him, the Turkish government wanted them to carry out a false
flag attack using chemical weapons in Syria, which Erdogan hoped would force the
US to intervene against the regime. Indeed, as I already noted above, Obama had
declared the use of chemical weapons a red line that Syria could not cross under
any circumstances. Hersh's claims were later supported by the allegations made in
December 2015 by Turkish members of Parliament, who
claimed
that, back in 2013, several people had been arrested with chemicals in
the South of Turkey a few weeks before the attack in Ghouta. According to them,
the prosecutor's office had wiretapped conversations proving that they were making
sarin, but this was almost completely ignored in the Western media.
But far be it for the mainstream media to remember back that far. Indeed, the
cable channels and the beltway politicians were all in war heat the entire weekend
at the sight and sound of Imperial Washington literally pounding sand in the
Syrian desert.
And right up front were not merely the usual suspects like Senator McWar (R-AZ)
and Little Marco (R-FL) busy ranting about the "war criminals" in Damascus and
Moscow, but also the ever so thoughtful (by his lights) Fareed Zakaria pronouncing
within minutes of the attack that "tonight Donald Trump became president".
Yes, that's what the man said. The entire Imperial City has become so
sick with war fever that an illegal, unconstitutional act of rash stupidity can be
proclaimed an exercise in high statesmanship.
Needless to say, the Donald will never shake himself loose of this tar-bay. He
has the US now in harm's way in the thick of an inferno crawling with Assad's
allies including the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah fighters, as well as his
enemies scattered among pockets and crevices of an artificial nation created by
European imperial diplomats in 1916 and utterly destroyed by Imperial Washington a
century later.
The "enemies", of course, include the remnants of the Islamic State in the
dusty rubble-strewn towns of the Upper Euphrates and the pockets of the northeast
such as Idlib province controlled by the equally horrid jihadists of Nusra front
and the various rebranded affiliates which operate with it.
As to the latter, the Donald may have actually helped revive what amounts to a
Taliban in the Levant in the name of protecting Syria's women and children.
Here is what one of America's most distinguished scholars has to say about the
Nusra front and their White Helmet auxiliaries who now rule the roost in Idlib.
The latter flood the world with fake news on the social media, of course, about
how they are being victimized by the duly elected leader of Syria – even as they
would "Khadafy" him in a heartbeat if they had the half the chance:
To judge how incompetent the rebels have been in providing a viable or
attractive alternative to Assad, one need merely consider the situation in the
province of Idlib, where the rebels rule. Schools have been segregated, women
forced to wear veils, and posters of Osama bin Laden hung on the walls. Government
offices were looted, and a more effective government has yet to take shape. With
the Talibanization of Idlib, the 100-plus Christian families of the city fled. The
few Druze villages that remained have been forced to denounce their religion and
embrace Islam; some of their shrines have been blown up. No religious minorities
remain in rebel-held Syria, in Idlib, or elsewhere. Rebels argue that Assad's
bombing has ensured their failure and made radicalization unavoidable. But such
excuses can go only so far to explain the terrible state of rebel Syria or its
excesses. We have witnessed the identical evolution in too many other Arab
countries to pin it solely on Assad, despite his culpability for the disaster that
has engulfed his country."
Needless to say, we have no brief for Bashar al-Assad. He and his family have
ruled Syria for 40 years harshly and more often than not by the sword. Their
regime has been based on secular principles and a coalition of minorities
including Christians, Druse, Kurds, Yazidis and their own minority Alawite
(Shiite) tribe. The alternative is a Sunni-jihadist led reign of ethnic cleansing
and an extension of the murderous caliphate hanging on by a thread in Raqqa and
Mosul.
Yet in getting out the birch switch against Assad without even remotely proving
the case, the Donald has ended up siding with the incipient Taliban occupiers of
Syria's northeast.
He needs to be careful. It's only a few short steps to this.
"... Many believe Tillerson was chosen specifically for his close relationship with the Russian government. On the other hand, in his first months Tillerson has been sidelined within the administration, which has left the state department badly understaffed as Trump increasingly allows career military officers such as Mattis and McMaster to shape his foreign policy. ..."
"... Trump has been accused of being a Russian puppet by some and a militarist by others, but the reality may be scarier than either: he has no idea what he's doing, ..."
On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, arrived in Moscow to meet with his
Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to try to discuss a way forward in Syria following the Trump
administration's airstrikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad late last week.
Syria is directly protected by Russia, which is dedicated to maintaining Assad in power at
whatever human cost. A US war against Syria by its very nature risks a US war against Russia.
Under any other president that would be scary enough, given Russia's nuclear arsenal and global
influence. But what makes it even more troubling is that it comes during an ongoing investigation
into the extent to which the Russian government meddled in the 2016 US election.
Trump, in other words, is playing chicken with Russia even as the nature of his relationship with
Russia remains bizarre and unexplained.
... ... ...
That leaves Trump in an awkward place as far as Russia is concerned. As a president with no
policy experience and no deep understanding of the world, he is reliant on advisers, and
increasingly that means national security establishment figures like secretary of defense James
Mattis and national security adviser HR McMaster, who hold mainstream hawkish views toward
Russia.
Last week, the establishment consolidated power in the Trump White House at the expense of
less traditional advisers such as Steve Bannon, whose position toward Russia was more
conciliatory. What this suggests is that to whatever extent Trump's campaign and initial
administration might have been "pro-Russian", its current orientation is the same as Clinton's,
or any of Trump's conventional Republican rivals such as Marco Rubio, would have been.
... ... ...
Many believe Tillerson was chosen specifically for his close relationship with the Russian
government. On the other hand, in his first months Tillerson has been sidelined within the
administration, which has left the state department badly understaffed as Trump increasingly
allows career military officers such as Mattis and McMaster to shape his foreign policy.
Whatever Tillerson might hope to achieve in Moscow could turn out to be less important given the
influence of officials inclined to look for military solutions to problems like Syria.
Trump has been accused of being a Russian puppet by some and a militarist by others, but
the reality may be scarier than either: he has no idea what he's doing,
and can be cajoled
into supporting wildly contradictory policies by anyone, including but not limited to Russia.
Trump surrendered to neocons. He is now Israel first instead of America first.
Notable quotes:
"... A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency. ..."
"... Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so. ..."
"... What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
"... Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants. ..."
"... For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain? ..."
"... Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war. ..."
"... And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary wars-may not be standing by him. ..."
"... We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
"... and the author of the book ..."
"... Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity? ..."
"... The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq? ..."
"... How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all. ..."
"... Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged the US national interest. ..."
"... Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that have damaged the national interest. ..."
"... Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President Trump. ..."
"... If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump. ..."
"... Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep. In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office. I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC. ..."
"... Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests. ..."
"... If you are on a diet, you do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual) war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult times. ..."
"... The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see. ..."
"... I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid. Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence" community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq. ..."
"... Surely; you jest . Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil; when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen.. ..."
"... "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?" – Ghandi ..."
"... I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within my power to take. ..."
"... Overthrowing Assad will certainly "do something about ISIS": It will grow stronger. ..."
"... John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks. You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice". Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count? How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA dare not thread ..."
"... There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field, and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing any soldiers." ..."
By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our "America First" president
may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.
Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back
to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.
Trump "will not stop here," warned UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. "If he needs to do more,
he will."
If Trump fails to back up Haley's threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him
as "Donald Obama."
But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and orders Syria's
air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaeda, but with Syria, Russia,
Iran, and Hezbollah.
A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency.
Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it
back into the Middle East?
Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened
us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.
Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.
What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children,
innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond
a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My
attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
Two days later, Trump was still emoting: "Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very
barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending.
But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.
Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli, and Turkish
planes and drones-and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels, and Shiite
militia.
Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians
in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible
for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?
Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?
For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was
no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's
rage, for no military gain?
Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America
into Syria's civil war.
And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president
has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom,
Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary
wars-may not be standing by him.
We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who
have causes they deem worth dying for.
For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaeda, it is about driving the Crusaders out
of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.
For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia
remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving
a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the
Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.
Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than
have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans
without a fight.
And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?
A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim
heretics? LGBT rights?
In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria.
We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue:
Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?
If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war,
the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.
Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but
Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see
that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity?
All he did was tell people what they wanted to hear but there was nothing in Trump's past that
would suggest he would ever deliver on them. At best Trump is just an opportunist who got in "over
his head" and will end up as "figurehead President" controlled by those who have done so much to
destroy what's left of the American Republic.
John Sharpe, April 11, 2017 at 1:45 am
Is it in America's vital interest that the use of WMD's never becomes a common tactic for unstable
regimes to punish/control misbehaving populations? I don't know. It's hard to argue for a world
where sarin gas attacks happen at the about the same frequency as car bombs. Could be a handful
of missiles bought the world another decade or so before that comes about.
john, April 11, 2017 at 1:48 am
The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now
they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship
Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq?
How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries
with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that
but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all.
Kurt Gayle, April 11, 2017 at 1:52 am
Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged
the US national interest.
Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers
who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars
– wars that have damaged the national interest.
This week's US bombing of Syria has set off alarm bells for many of us. We find it hard to
believe that – after just three months in office – someone in whom we placed so much trust might
be on the verge of betraying his promise to keep us out of unnecessary wars.
Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President
Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President
Trump.
If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military
confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying
the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump.
Instead, we will do what we have always done: We will support our country, the US, and its
national interest in staying out of unnecessary foreign wars.
The ball is now in President Trump's court. We, his supporters, are watching him closely –
by the hour.
"In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria."
Obama was much smarter than Trump. Now Republicans are trashing Obama for being weak and praising
Trump for being strong. The Republicans talk about rule of law when it suits them.
Trump sent a message. A pretty expensive and stupid and meaningless one. The majority of stupid
Republicans and spineless Democrats are supporting it.
Trump did what he was supposed to: he eliminated Hillary. Now we need to survive theses four
years.
Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep.
In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office.
I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC.
Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that
sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever
to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests.
If you are on a diet, you
do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual)
war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been
irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult
times.
The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken
to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up
toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see.
This administration has all the finesse of a bar fight with baseball bats.
"Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian "
Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? For
when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we launch
investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out
justice. At least that's the way we hope it works. No such thing happens on the Russian side.
Russia was complicit in this gas attack. In fact, Russia targets innocents regularly. And
there is no comparable scandal in Moscow.
"We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war"
Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?
I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid.
Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence"
community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow
government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian
revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one
million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass
destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq.
That list is just off the top of my head. Yet we're supposed to automatically believe this
same "intelligence" community knows beyond doubt what happened in that gas attack?
"For when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we
launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out
justice "
Surely; you jest .
Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil;
when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen..
IN the end; we will do what Israel wants us to do We did in Iraq; in Libya; yet to do in Iran;
and now we will attack Syria; all because Israel wants us to .
"Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? "
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction
is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
– Ghandi
I doubt that those on the ground really know who it is that are bombing them all the time.
A bomb is a bomb, a missile a missile. An errant drone strike that hits a hospital does the same
damage that an intentional one causes.
"Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"
Ah, to 'do something'. I can do a lot of somethings: I could wish really hard ISIS go away,
I could launch attacks on China thinking that would deter ISIS, I could paint a red line around
my house cause ISIS won't cross red lines. ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. They have no aircraft carrier,
no tanks, no transport ships. They will no arrive on our shores in a mass invasion. They are trying
to recruit those that are here, inspire attacks, and infiltrate in numbers less than a dozen.
Let our intelligence services do their job, not our military a thousand miles away.
"In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria."
In 2013, a GOP coalition came together to stop Obama getting credit for doing something the
GOP war party wanted to reserve solely for their own use – bombing brown people to inflate their
domestic polling numbers.
I think that is what you meant to say.
If you are under the illusion that the GOP stopped Obama from bombing Syria for any other reason
than the above, you are in need of a check-up.
I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in
Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within
my power to take.
Also to respond to John S.'s comment: "Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"
How does creating a power vacuum in Syria thwart ISIS?
John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks.
You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability,
we mete out justice".
Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD
and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count?
How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA
dare not thread
To our honor can we also add Afganistan where we displaced the government with a constant night
rides and drone attacks?
Oh by the way we lobbied bombs on a hospital operated by Doctors without borders, we first denied
then said may be and launched an investigation to nowhere?
Surely appreciate your thoughts.
words that have been uttered by stiffed contractors and workers for decades and now people
who thought they had elected a savior.
This is the problem with personality cults, Mr. Buchanan. Trump was a million different images
to a million different people. But, ultimately, he's a conman and selfish.
None of this is surprising, even if the details are frightening. Trump lied; he always lies;
he will continue to lie.
We need to check this frightening figure. I can only hope the Constitutional 'literalists'
grow a pair and do their duty. So far, it seems we have a party of sycophants to our own strongman
"Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have
also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that
have damaged the national interest.
"
There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field,
and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship
between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because
you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing
any soldiers."
If the Russians and Iranians starting laughing when Trump gave them 30 minutes advance warning
of the message he was going to send to Assad for using chemical weapons, they really doubled over
when Trump's people called for regime change in Syria. Talk about a meaningless gesture. The only
way there will be a regime change in Syria is if the Russians and Iranians decide Assad is no
longer useful and they want to put their selected puppet on the throne for reasons that they see
as vital to their national interests, which Syria very much represents to both of them.
RGC -> RGC...
April 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM President Trump's strikes against the Syrian
government earned the support of the American people and improved views of Trump
(albeit only slightly), according to a new poll.
But the biggest takeaway might be the big, red stop sign that came with all
that.
A new CBS News poll - the first live-caller poll to test reactions to the
strikes - shows 57 percent of Americans agree with the decision Trump made.
His approval rating, meanwhile, edged up to 43 percent, with about half (49
percent) still disapproving.
But Americans were even more emphatic about what they don't want to see next:
any other unilateral strikes authorized by Trump or further involvement, period.
And there is basically no vote of confidence when it comes to Trump's leadership.
"... The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation
with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself? Peter K. -> pgl... , April
10, 2017 at 11:44 AM As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term
strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run.
It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention. ..."
"... Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent
war going. ..."
"... How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously
repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda? ..."
"... The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims
and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients! ..."
"... To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or
a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks. ..."
"... Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they
are. ..."
"... While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists.
The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut!
How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining. ..."
War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002,
that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state
in the 'American Century'.
If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained
in Aleppo!
This series of laments and explanations are remarkably interesting, and I am grateful for them.
I have found these last days discouraging, though foolishly so no doubt. So the laments help and
can be most informative even though outlines.
The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation
with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself?
As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off
of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like
Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention.
Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going.
" .and weaken American credibility .."
How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously
repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda?
The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims
and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients!
To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug
or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks.
Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they
are.
While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to
jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey
was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining.
"... Now he really can be impeached by DemoRats with impunity and there will be little on no protests. But now, when he surrendered to neocons, why DemoRats take trouble to impeach him? ..."
"... In other words, from April 6 "Agent Orange" is walking in his new clothing like naked king from Andersen tale. ..."
Trump and Putin are both Kabuki theater
specialists who use foreign military adventurism to stoke nationalism and distract from other issues.
So in that regard, they are still very much in cooperation in Syria, even if on opposite sides of
the actual conflict.
Trump campaigned on non-interventionism platform. Almost paleo--conservative platform.
And on April 6 he lost "anti-war right". And even some part of anti-war left ( Sanders supporters
who really hated Hillary for her jingoism and corruption ) who supported him holding the nose.
Probably forever.
That might have consequences for him because he lost support from politically active and
important segment of his electorate. Which to certain extent protected him from impeachment
as the last thing DemoRats want are fierce protests up to armed clashes with alt-right afterward.
If his calculation was that DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats) are now also a War party, so
it does not matter, he probably badly miscalculated.
He now needs to worry what Russians might have on him because Wikileaks or other similar
sites might get some interesting materials. Of course Pence would be even more horrible POTUS,
and revenge is a dish that better serve cold, but still he probably did not sleep well after
this "Monica" show of strength.
He also probably can forget about any compromises of the style "something for nothing" (as
previous presidents enjoyed from Russia in a wane hope of improving relations between two countries) from Russians
for a while.
Only things prepaid with yuans from now on ;-).
The whole move smells with "Monica" and Iraq WDM: "Shoot first ask questions later".
Now he really can be impeached by DemoRats with impunity and there will be little on no
protests. But now, when he surrendered to neocons, why DemoRats take trouble to impeach him?
In other words, from April 6 "Agent Orange" is walking in his new clothing like naked king
from Andersen tale.
In a way, I wish Trump actually were more of a Putin toady - a
least in this case - because Putin's policy in Syria has been, although by no means progressive,
certainly more intelligent than US policy. Alas, Trump seems not to be the Manchurian candidate
of MS-NBC fever dreams.
The US has promoted yet another perpetual civil war in the Middle East, this time in Syria,
and has worked with its allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia - or at least looked the
other way - as they flood foreign fighters into that country. So they have helped create another
Iraqified hellscape, with many regions outside Assad's control now brutal mini theocracies, and
the most catastrophic refugee crisis in history as people race out of the country to escape ALL
of the belligerents. Now, in typical fashion among the beltway national "security" sickos, some
are proposing yet another sectarian partition of a country they themselves helped destroy and
fragment.
And look at the old gang all over the airwaves cheering on the further destabilization of that
country and plugging for another US escalation and regime change crusade: Wolfowitz, Woolzey,
Friedman, Boot, Abrams, McCaingraham, Clinton - the whole beltway neocon and interventionist-imperialist
hawk gang. They're the geniuses who gave us Iraq, and now they have another crackpot scheme in
the works: to depose Assad in favor of yet another phony crew of Beltway-tabbed "moderates", with
regime change in Iran their ultimate target. They're giddy, because they think they might have
flipped the very manipulable and very conscience-deprived Trump to their own sick side. But they
will only spread more of their typical carnage and misery.
There has still not been a proper investigation of the gas incident in Syria last week. Somehow,
we are all supposed to believe that Assad suddenly decided to use chemical weapons in a war he
was winning, thus inviting a foreign backlash. OK, it's a possibility. But it's also a possibility
that the chemicals were used by al Qaeda fighters themselves as atrocity propaganda - something
people in that region have a significant track record in doing.
Another possibility is that the chemicals were stored by the local fighters and their release
was an unintended by-product of a conventional bombing.
Both Syria and Russia have called for an independent investigation of the incident. I guess
that only proves how diabolical Putin is! The US has resisted, and also blew up potential forensic
evidence in that cruise missile attack. Hmmm ...
If Americans fall for another one of these war party ampaigns,
When Iran decides it is essential for national survival to close the Hormuz with an assist from
Russia and to starve the jihadi the G7 (less the US which is too far gone in its renascent PNAC
craze) may wake up.
Turkey is a big player keeping ISIS alive and supporting all the jihadis.
Trump just started World War 3 -
as 59 Tomahawk missiles slam into a Syrian airfield.
Trump's excuse? Another false flag "atrocity."
Just like removing Saddam Husein from Iraq, CIA's Syria
strategy starts by demonizing the foreign leader (with a
staged Syrian "sarin gas attack"), then calls for United
Nations joint effort to seize control of the foreign
territory.
But this False Flag "sarin gas attack" in Syria was poorly
staged by CIA and Israel -- since emergency personnel
handled victims of the fake sarin attack using bare hands
(no protective gloves). That would never happen in a real
chemical weapons attack -- since the paramedics would get
contanimated with neurological toxins.
Is Trump's strategy against Syria just a replay of the
phony "WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse used to
overthrow Iraq? Is oil the goal -- or does the USA seek
something more?
For Updates, Subscribe to 'Barry Soetoro' Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzi...
Truthseeker 1060
4
days ago
To believe this false flag one has to be stupid or
corrupt. A smart person would not believe this lame
attempt to frame Assad. So if Trump attacks Assad he
will blow his cover and expose himself for the
globalist he really is. It's your move Mr. Trump.
Who are you? Let's see. The world is watching.
Natasha Vonoskabaya
4
days ago (edited)
Yup. Trump celebrates his first WMD White House
False Flag! I was always a skeptic of Trump, but
voted for him because Hillary.. Seems Trump, Hillary
and Bush are the same people.
Real Newsforever
3
days ago
60 Tomahawk Missiles just launched in 60 seconds for
a total weight of 60,000 pounds reported on CBS.
Sound like a pattern???
cloncar101 AJ
3
days ago (edited)
he was such an idiot to send those missiles
Internet Privacy Advocate
3
days ago
Impeach Trump now.
Jerry Fernandez
3
days ago
The first Trump strike to expand the Greater Israel
Project. (Is this the Jared effect?) Attacking Syria
is to start WW3. The Russians are not going to run
away from Syria, and the U.S. Military are going to
get their ass kicked. Obama destroyed the U.S.
Military advantage during last 8 years, and left $20
Trillion debt. Syria does not have a Rothschild
Central Bank as U.S. does (Federal Reserve). Israel
announced today that it will continue to strike
Syria. Israel does not do anything without CIA
approval. The sisters (Israel & Saudi Arabia) are
going all out on Syria. Qatar gas pipeline through
Syria. This Syria attack is to draw Iran in to the
conflict for all out war. WW3. President Trump, I
have believed in you and I want to continue
believing in you, and this looks very bad. I want
PEACE for our HUMANITY WORLDWIDE. NO MORE WARS! It's
Mars all over again.
Constitution_89
3
days ago
I am truly horrified with this news in the last 4
hours. I want to believe it has happened due to the
"intelligence/prodding/Lies of the
Bush/Clinton/Obama sycophants that are still all
over D.C. in every facet of the Fed and Pres. Trump
has been cajoled into this, but I can't believe that
he would be fooled by this. Anyone with a
functioning brain would understand that Assad
couldn't have done this, the consequences of such an
action on his part are just to insanely suicidally
Stupid. I'll say it right now that you can already
believe that the MIC Salesman, Muslim Brotherhood
Supporter, RINO Traitor and Trump hater Mumpface
McCain and his CIA Droogs have a hand in this Sarin
Attack if it even really happened. But Trump has
fallen for this??? I'm in shock, I really am --- and
very worried.
bob murphy
3
days ago
Where's the Proof that Assad did this, please don't
use fabricate b.s. from the White House.
DSWynne
3
days ago My main concern is how convenient the Syrian gassing
had occurred, just days after Trump re-affirmed his
commitment to avoid "messing situations" overseas,
especially since Assad is winning his fights (with
Russia's help, of course). Why start using sarin gas
now? Just doesn't feet right, as if there was a
script at work.
BG Hoover
3
days ago
I do not feel betrayed. I am concerned at the infiltration into the
White House by Jarvanka, Cohn and Powell.
Wylliam Reichart
13
hours ago
White house was not infiltrated, this has
been the plan for years, makes no
difference the talking head that implements
it. Trump did what he needed to do to gain
power, now he is doing the bidding of his
masters. You are in denial that you were
bamboozled by a fraud, join the crowd.
"... Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon stripped of national security council role Tuesday memorandum also restores traditional roles on council of chairman of joint chiefs of staff and director of national intelligence ..."
"... A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former head of the rightwing Breitbart News. ..."
"... When officials released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall. ..."
8 April 2017 07.00 EDT Last modified on Saturday 8 April 2017 17.01 EDT
The sun shone on Donald Trump's debut in the rose garden. As reporters filed in for the time honoured
White House tradition, the president's aide Omarosa Manigault stood in the Palm Room, speaking urgently
into her phone. Vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Rex Tillerson shared a joke on the
front row. And the president's senior adviser and son-in-law, ->
Jared Kushner , exuded
confidence, nodding and smiling at a fellow guest as he took his place.
But as Trump held a joint press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, ->
denouncing a chemical weapons attack on children in Syria that would lead to a US missile strike
a day later, there was a glaring absence. Chief strategist Steve Bannon, mocked by Trump's critics
as "President Bannon" on Twitter, had lost his place in the sun.
A bitter turf war is said to under way in the White House between Kushner and Bannon, former
head of the rightwing Breitbart News. In the past week there were indications that the latter,
->
who once declared himself "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors", could be heading for
a fall like Cromwell's, albeit without the gore that accompanied the English minister's violent end.
While Kushner paid a surprise visit to Iraq, beating Tillerson to the photo opps aboard a military
helicopter, Bannon was unceremoniously demoted from the national security council (NSC).
When officials
released a picture on Friday of a national security briefing on Syria, Kushner had a seat at
the table while Bannon was behind Trump, his back to the wall.
Keeper of the flame for the isolationist "America first" doctrine, a backlash against the neocons' invasion of Iraq and other
US attempts to meddle in world affairs. A month ago the ex-head of Breitbart News was rumoured to be the second most powerful
man in the world. But last week Bannon, left, was removed from the National Security Council at McMaster's behest.
Mike Cernovich, blogger
A peddler of conspiracy theories said to be influential with the administration, he describes himself as "new right". Last
week Trump's son, Donald Jr, tweeted: "In a long gone time of unbiased journalism he'd win the Pulitzer." But Cernovich has promoted
the hashtag #SyriaHoax and said: "This is appalling really. This is unbelievable.
This is not what we voted for. This is definitely not what we voted for ."
Ann Coulter, author and broadcaster
The author of In Trump We Trust and tireless media champion of the president expressed bitter disappointment to her
1.46m Twitter followers. She posted: "Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies &
creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."
Rand Paul, senator for Kentucky
The libertarian senator played golf with Trump last weekend and appeared to be forming an unlikely alliance over allegations
of surveillance by the Obama administration.
But he told CNN on Saturday: "He really, clearly ran on the Iraq war was a mistake, regime change hasn't worked, and that involving
ourselves in civil wars throughout the world is really not the job of America's foreign policy.
"Some will say maybe this is an exception to the rule, and I hope frankly that this is an exception, that he won't believe
that we can actually solve the Syria war militarily."
"... In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS? ..."
"... Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes? ..."
"... And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US? ..."
"... American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep! ..."
"... The world does not need another full scale war! ..."
"... This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier. ..."
"... And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*. ..."
"... Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. ..."
"... Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on. ..."
"... Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid. ..."
"... Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home. ..."
"... Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do. ..."
"... I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit? ..."
"... I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians. ..."
"... But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda. ..."
"... And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve. ..."
"... We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting. ..."
"... The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene. ..."
"... In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between. ..."
"... But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him? ..."
"... Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up. ..."
"... The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide. ..."
"... As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth. ..."
"... Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge. ..."
"... Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria ..."
"... It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag.. ..."
"... America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere. ..."
"... It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality. ..."
"... There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side. ..."
"... A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely. ..."
"... Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS. ..."
"... Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades. ..."
"... An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year. ..."
"... Who's warmonger now? ..."
"... A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this. ..."
"... With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes. ..."
"... According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)... ..."
"... Tomahawk diplomacy ..."
"... IMO there are only two options now. ..."
"... Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or ..."
"... He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore ..."
"... The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up. ..."
"... Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself . ..."
"... Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head. ..."
"... BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase? If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"? Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48 So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump. ..."
"... Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! ..."
"... Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate. ..."
"... "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides." Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong? beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50 Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America ..."
"... As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power. ..."
"... ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012. ..."
"... "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. " ..."
"... In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed ..."
You would hope that our "independent" media might ask some important questions, rather than
simply swallow the narrative our government's feed them...
For instance, where is the evidence that the Syrian regime did this? Only on Wednesday the
UN stated that it could not say with any certainty that the chemicals were delivered by air.
Indeed the UN investigation has barely started, so if the US have information that Assad did
this surely they should present it?
What about motive, why would Assad who everyone agrees is on the brink of winning this war
give the US a reason to intervene against him? Besides didn't we also oversee the distruction
of his chemical weapons stockpile 4 years ago?
We know ISIS have chemical weapons because our ally Turkey has let them import them over their
border.
Also, even if we ignore the legality of last night's strike, what has it done to help the situation
in Syria?
In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region
sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently
do US actions like this help ISIS?
I don't know about anyone else but it is pretty standard for me that when someone is accused
of something I look for the evidence and motives. It seems unfortunately that our media have long
stopped asking any difficult questions, as we sleepwalk into yet another middle eastern war...
The number of countries not bombed by the USA grows smaller all the time. It is a foreign policy
based on high explosives - mindless, cruel and bound to create more enemies.
What the hell exactly is the message? Don't use chemical weapons on the beautiful babies, stick
to blowing them to pieces and mutilating them with conventional weapons like civilized people?
Asking again: where is the toxic chemical cloud from the airbase the US attacked overnight that
was allegedly the base from where chemical air raids were launched and thus presumably where the
toxic material was in storage?
Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes?
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for
more strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she
wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White
House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*.
International laws are ignored, pretexts hastily fabricated (did you notice they don't pay
so much attention to detail anymore?) and people die to be used as an excuse for yet another war
crime in the perpetual quest for more and more and more money.
*If they refuse, they are shown the footage of Kennedy assassination taken from a yet unseen
angle (RIP Bill Hicks).
Islamic state takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – Not long after the U.S. attacked the Shayrat Airbase in eastern
Homs, the Islamic State (ISIL) launched two separate attacks on the Syrian Arab Army's (SAA) defenses
in the Palmyra.
I struggle to see why bombs are almost universally accepted way of solving foreign problems, even
by most of the left.
It might seem like standing by and doing nothing in the face of appalling horrors, but enlightenment
and revolution has to come naturally and from the people, and dropping foreign bombs is just going
to confuse the issue.
There are so many non-violent, more effective options that we never seem to use. Why not open
borders to allow show refugees compassion and that the rest of the world is not like their home
country? Why not charter warships to peacefully collect those seeking refuge, removing them from
the conflict rather than raining down more conflict on them? Why not do low fast flybys as a show
of not only vast force, but restraint, responsibility, compassion? Why not remove military force
peacefully, by cutting off arms trade? Why not drop thousands of flowers? Why not drop information?
Food? Teddy bears?
Well the liberal elite finally got what they wanted. A shooting war in the Middle East. I hope
The Guardian, BBC and Vauxhall Cross are all very proud of themselves this morning.
Russia has suspended the memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the
United States amid the US missile strike on Syria's Shayrat military airfield, according to
the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement.
And there is more to come. Now, US (and UK) aircrafts can be freely knocked down from the sky.
Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin
incident.
Also whenever the media just blindly report something as fact without any concrete evidence,
without any critical thought, investigation & examination etc then I'm always highly suspicious
(just like tthe last chemical attack, where they were eagerly stating that Assad did it, there
was video footage etc etc yet it turned out that it was the "Rebels" who were behind the attack
all along.
Of course the media never told us that, as soon as it became apparent that Assad did not do
it they dropped the story so fast, swept under the rug never to be reported ever again).
I mean it really doesn't add up as Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons (he's winning
the war(and would've won along time ago if it wasn't for the West proping up the supposed "Rebels
& Moderates" more like Isis and AQ), he benifets in no way, and only brings about international
scorn) risking the advantage he has), the whole thing comes across as very fishy.
All too convenient & very contrived. I think we're being had by the powers that be, and unfortunately
too many people aren't smart enough, don't possess the critical thinking to see that and will
fall for it hook, line and sinker, will take it all at face value.
Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence,
that Trump vindicated his action on.
So far, the information available, is not irrefutable i.e. that Assad's forces were involved
in a deliberate gas attack, and in fact he would be mad to do so, knowing it couldn't be concealed,
and the consequences are what we're seeing now.
At the moment, we are told that planes took off from that airfield, were logged on US radar
to the town, on which explosives were dropped, and that the military base, might have had stocks
of chemical weapons, in 2013.
Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence,
that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid.
Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist
rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency
at home.
Of course, if Assad is directly to blame, and that can be demonstrated without doubt, then
by all means, retaliate, and very hard, but until then, a more measured and circumspect appraisal
is now necessary.
I think we in the west need to be very careful and set an example by respecting international
law, for one day the Anglo world might not be the world's dominant military powers. There needed
to be a proper investigation before any action. Working with Russia to find out exactly
what happened.
How would we like to be struck at will with a total inability to respond by a militarily superior
foe wherever & whenever that foe feels like it? It could be a superior Chinese military floating
off our coast one day , with us screaming about international law.
I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly
there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind
it. How do they benefit?
Why use chemical weapons when the US said it was the "line"? Who does benefit from this? Have
false flag operations happened before (with proof)? It's extremely dangerous to believe what has
been said in the US and UK since this attack, and not answered these questions as well. Something
clearly is amiss here.
I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The
most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians.
But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly
advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda.
For the Trump administration it was a great moment to show China and North Korea that the USA
is capable of delivering a knock-out blow to the North Koreans nuclear ambitions.
And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to
a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve.
We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting.
This seems so coordinated - alleged chemical attack, universal condemnation of Assad, US missile
strike and then within hours ISIS are attacking Syrian army bases.
Shame so little condemnation here when US killed 100s if not 100s recently in Iraq, but seems
most here are now disgusting Trump supporters so no surprise.
It's all a convenient set up - ever since Trump announced he was pulling back from confronting
Assad - the war machine went into overdrive - and sucked Don in.
Another knee jerk reaction from the USA. Next thing we know the west can add Syria to its list
of disastrous military campaigns that will sink another country into even bigger chaos. Greater
loss of life and like Libya, a breeding ground for Daesh.
But still, think of the profit for the manufacturer of Cruise missiles. Another twenty six and
a half million dollars of missiles to be replaced. One wonders if top brass are on a commission
from the arms manufacturers?
Don't get me wrong, I loathe Assad. But I don't get why he would have launched a chemical attack
now. He's winning. He knows he loses by doing something like that. Are we sure he did it? If he
goes who's next? Are they worse? Why aren't we airlifting kids out of these areas, we could do
that. We moved kids during WW2, and we didn't have the technology we have now. If we can use a
drone to drop a missille, why can't it drop food and medications on people who need it. We are
morally bankrupt. In the face of all this immorality we sit here and order another Starbucks and
type with impotent rage. How can we get this to stop?
This is frightening: policy replaced by a knee-jerk reaction based on Trump's moods. The atrocity
was unspeakable, Assad is a vicious despot, Russia's backing for him is purblind. But..
In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime,
to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established
facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between.
And still US policy on Syria is a mystery, not to say non-existent: the strike raises more
questions than it answers. If this was limited action, was it anything more than gesture politics?
But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him?
Good comment - as mentioned elsewhere today Trump seems to be rapidly reversing his policy on
Syria - re Assad and refugees allowed entry to America etc. Might this airstrike action usefully
get him off the hook with regard to the Puppet of Russia accusations and define him in a "good"
light with his home audience in juxtaposition to Obama's reluctance to strike?
The Americans have surveillance that should be able to prove Assad was guilty. Time to show it.
Or maybe the Russians are right and Trump has been played by the jihadists who are quite capable
of gassing civilians to provoke a response against Assad.
Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been
framed. Only evidence can clear this up.
The worrying issue to me is that Trump seems to be capable of knee-jerk reactions with very little
diplomacy or forethought as to the inevitable consequences. The chemical raids were undoubtedly
a ghastly act by whoever perpetrated them, but in this particular conflict, like so many in that
troubled part of the world, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the good guys from the bad.
Now Trump wades in with unilateral air strikes - gunboat diplomacy at its worst that could spark
wider conflict. Now where did I put those instructions on how to build my nuclear shelter?
So many people want Assad gone. Who will be put in his place? The result of removing brutal dictators
from the Middle East is all too clear to see, not only across the Middle East, but across Europe
and across the world.
Where is the proof that it was Assad?
A year back Saudi smuggled weapons to Turkey supposedly in relation to the Syrian conflict,
but which the Turks would have used against the Kurds.
There is too much that isn't known in this instance to take action. I can't see Russia and
Assad now backing away. North Korea might even offer them a helping hand (whether that hand would
be taken might be unlikely, but backed into a corner - who knows).
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more
strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
Wasn't a week ago US decided change policy on removing Assad..the Turks and the terrorists couldn't
have that so they made up this gas attack because its a red line, some of those filming those
horrific pictures were terrorists..the hawks used it and Trump fell for it.
The West wants to topple Syria in order to get closer to Iran and do the same thing there ( send
in and supply the murderous cut throats to collapse it from the inside) therefore anything about
Assad being this and the Syrian Government being that, as per the Western Media , is just Bull
....as far as I am concerned.
Personality related impulsive behaviour? Seems Trump feels a need for power without reflection
of the consequences of his actions and consultation with the leaders of other nations. abuse of
his position of power? If he makes these decisions what else will follow?
Trump is not capable of reflection or even forethought. He acts in the way he speaks, i.e. whatever
is passing through his head is the next thing to do/say. He is the most clueless US president
I've heard of, and that includes Reagan.
Orwell predicted a machine that would churn out garbage music to satisfy the proles. Does the
Guardian have such a machine simply attach a name before publishing?
6 years of hand-wringing? Let's have some more of that.
Amazing how many people, on both sides of the argument, are ready with hard and fast opinions
so rapidly. Might be an idea to wait until a few more facts are in, and the ramifications begin
to reveal themselves. But I guess that's not how the internet (or commentary) works.
Regime change of Syria was on Wesley Clarke's list 16 years ago after 9/11.
Assad had only just come to power, so it's clearly an orchestrated exercise and the US is frankly
running out of time and excuses not to get in and get the job done, ironically for the Swamp creatures
that Donald said he wanted to get rid of, what a complete numskull.
I thought Trump wasn't the warmonger and would focus on the USA, which would only concern itself
with other countries if there was something to gain from it. First he doesn't care and now that
he has seen dead children it is suddenly different? How rash and unpredictable.
It appears that the Guardian doesn't think it necessary to wait for the conclusion of any investigation
into the chemical attack before pronouncing Assad responsible. I take it this approach is an example
of what the Guardian considers to be "quality journalism". Most people would consider quality
journalism to rely upon evidence, rather than an editorial agenda.
FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG The only thing which could derail Assad's total victory in Syria
is if he uses chemical weapons. Then he uses chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Assad he
isn't mad. This is clearly a con and Trump has fallen for it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees
into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I
don't believe it
Neither do I. I think he is trying to save his job. With Trump if you can't baffle them with
brains baffle them with BS. This attack is a distraction from the Russian/Flynn investigation.
What it achieves for Trump is the following:
1. Makes him look anti Russian. This is important because of the investigation into his cronies
connections with Russia.
2. Proves he has given up on Ukraine, so no removal of sanctions and therefore no big oil deal
with Russia.
3. Encourages ISIS and Al-Quaeda.
4. Has committed an act of war against Syria so America is now at war with Syria. A war with no
strategy like Iraq, Libya.
5. Makes Trump look like a leader.
6. Has probably alienated many of his supporters.
Most of all he thinks this action will save his job.
I see the international context as secondary to the US-domestic one. Since taking office Trump
has been made to look a twat by judges, demonstrators and his own legislature. And so the Syrian
chemical attacks previded him with a wonderful opportunity to do something military which is always
the fall-back of poor leaders. He can now say he is strong, America is strong, we'll take on the
bad guys, etc etc.
To be honest nobody really cares much about Assad (I doubt even the Russians do beyond his country's
strategic usefulness) so it was a target that while championed at home was always going to win
approval abroad (even if muttered under the breath).
It also allowed Trump to do the hard-man/big-swinging-dick act right in the Chinese leader's face
- again a 'win' for him.
I think he is calculating that he has just saved his presidency. Given the lunacy of US politics
at the moment he is probably right.
If there is anyone out there who would really think that Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical
weapons, he/she (Trump/May) must be, well, stupid.
Mr Trump admitted that US had done "bad things". This is just another example. What he has
done plays wholly into the hands of some very questionable regimes and IS.
The tomahawk was an offensive weapon. What is offensive about white USA adopting it to name
its modern killer is that the original carriers, defending their land, were mown down using the
latest weapon of the time - the Gatling gun.
America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity
- anywhere.
It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks
to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military
intervention without evidence or legality.
There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a
major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the
scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side.
Civil wars come to end either with defeat of one party or all sides becoming exhausted of violence.
The proxy backers ensure that defeat for their side is impossible, and the sectarian aspect makes
exhaustion a far off prospect since each side fears genocide should it lose. Nonetheless, it might
be over by now if Russia has not intervened to prop up Assad, reducing his need to compromise.
A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although
with modern munitions that seems unlikely.
As for the American air strike, a negative spin would be it made no difference (but the Russian
reaction suggest that is not the case) while a positive spin was that it tilted the balance back
towards a compromise ending (since Assad can no longer assume the Russian presence gives him immunity
from serious harm).
Isn't this exactly the kind of action that The Guardian and CNN etc have been goading Trump towards
since he took office? With every article accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or a Manchurian
candidate, the "liberal" media has pushed him ever closer to sending this message .
The "message" isn't intended for Assad, and it's quite clearly marked with sheepish apologies
to Russia - which aren't going to wash, as Trump possibly guesses, but he had more urgent priorities
than Russia, such as proving that he isn't their "man" to domestic critics. This was all
done for the benefit of US and European audiences. Those in the media who clamored for it, must
have lost all sense of irony, not to say integrity, to come out with umbrage now that Trump as
reacted precisely as should have been predictable in order to defend his reputation against their
jibes.
The only redeeming feature of Trump's campaign was that he didn't seem to want to keep America
(and with it so much of the globe) embroiled in endless war. That broad instinct for a bit less
less war, if translated into actual policy, was the one Trump offering that you'd think the "liberal"
media could get behind.
But no. Trump was working for "the Russians", don't you know, and now he's prepared to push
us all one step closer to war with them just to disprove the playground taunts.
Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international
parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know
for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels",
or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America
created ISIS.
Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on
in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news
source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly,
Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of
the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable
narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has
been regarding acts of war in the past few decades.
When will the media accept the role they play in this? It is frankly grueling to read these
"outraged" reports while none of that goes acknowledged.
An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might
see one or the other interesting picture or video this year.
Trump tweet 2013 - What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term
conflict. Do not attack Syria. Very many bad things will happen and US gets nothing!
I remember sitting in front of my TV watching the horror of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade
Centre. Fast forward 16 years and leader of the so called free world has bombed Syria on the say
so of Al-Qaeda while liberals cheer! What's going on?
This is a smokescreen, it has more to do with Trump giving a message to Xi face to face. He (Trump)
is telling Xi that if he doesn't deal with North Korea this is what he is capable of. Now watch
this drive.
I utterly despise how the narrative has just moved on and no one seems concerned with seeing any
proof of whether Assad is actually responsible for these attacks.
Assad probably had nothing to do with the attacks in 2013, and he has literally zero motive
for these attacks. Yet a vast majority of people just accept it because they trust the media to
do their job instead of act as a mouthpiece for warmongering assholes.
Shame on you Guardian, shame on all the journalists not questioning and demanding facts.
Clearly the chemical weapons attack was horrendous, not something we ever want to see repeated.
But i fear what we have done here, by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is ensured that
the real perpetrator of these attacks is now emboldened and considering the whole thing a great
success. You'll note it is Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) and ISIS who are celebrating these US led attacks
on Syria. Think about that for a second. Are you really convinced they didn't carry out the chemical
attacks, in territory they held? They had everything to gain by doing so and casting the blame
on Assad, and given their defeat is currently almost certain, they had everything to gain.
Their ability to use such weapons is well documented in US intelligence reports.
Why are we so quick to jump to conclusions, when our chosen suspect has literally ZERO motive
for doing something like this.
Think people. Your journalists won't do it for you unfortunately.
In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer,
made these observations: When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack
on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching
the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was
the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims' symptoms appeared to be the
result of a "choking agent", and not a military grade agent.
"largely ineffective bombing does little but make US lawmakers feel good".
Grateful for this insight. I think your last line covers what Trump actually intended. To look
to his own people, that he is acting decisively and those that supported him will see this action
as doing that. I think he intends no more than the appearance of looking like a decisive leader.
That can only be short lived as the reality impinges on his projected image to his supporters.
We have to vane men at the head of large countries - what could go wrong?!
We knew this new regime wanted war, Syria being it's first target, who knows north Korea and the
Russia.
The yanks need war to fuel and feed it's inhabitants, it simply can't resist without it.
Scary times to be a living in a world with mad yanks and that man controlling them.
God bless the people that suffer daily in Syria at the hands of American funded terror.
I'm quite suspicious that it happened at all. Syria denies responsibility and it seems logical
to question why they'd do the "chemical massacre" when it could only harm their own position.
May was in Saudi Arabia pretty quickly after Brexit was triggered to talk "trade" etc. It seems
that everybody hates Iran. Support for Trump's "targeted" attack is being quickly announced by
the apparent current alliance states, have there actually been any pictures released of the "chemical
massacre" of dead bodies? Just graves being dug, and graves already filled in with neatly placed
headstones - tidy. And, yes, children with oxygen masks on, but isn't sarin gas pretty quick acting,
being "26 times more deadly than cyanide" and leading to death by losing your insides to the outside,
basically.
A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing
chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this.
With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people,
the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes.
*If* there was actual evidence that Syria committed that crime, do you who favour military
action in Syria not think that most people would back attacking them with full force?
The rush to attack with no evidence says it all - it says there is none, the same MO as before.
Even the NY Times hardly a fan of Assad has backed down on the endless repeated assertions that
it was Assad forces that caused the 2O13 Ghouta chemical attack.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/that the BBC
does not even seem to question. This is the notorious Red line case that Obama allegedly fudged.
The reason was the evidence pointed clearly to it being a Rebel False Flag as Seymour Hersh the
guy who broke the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam first opined to near universal silence .
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
On this much every Guardian reader needs to at least assess the evidence and they won't get much
help from the MSN
But who needs evidence? And don't think for one moment Intelligence services not capable of doing
this. We all know about the WMD claims that were enough, despite being completely baseless, to
launch a war while the State Dept scrambled desperately to prove a non existent connection between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
This is the Age of The Big Lie... the technique so ably initiated by Goebbels. Better than repeat
opinions at least research the evidence.
According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever
you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)...
Can someone/ anyone explain why, when he is winning on all fronts, Assad would use chemical
weapons?
When the other bad guys...isis twist of as a reaction...hope Trump will take them to court. Of
course such does not apply to USA...them not having signed up to ICC. An alleged isis in your
back garden gives them licence to bomb you. Happy days...for American arms industry
The issues in Syria are due to both uk and usa acting like mercenary in the first place, i see
it that obama is guilty of war crimes all due to been a puppet of saudi.
Its when we look at the bigger picture we can begin to realise what is causing all this..... The
UK is the world's second biggest arms exporter with a market share of about 20% and directly employs
350,000 people spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for
a living, now at the same time, then we must look back to when 2013, Wahhabism was identified
by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism, we must ask ourselves
as to why the UK is still selling weapons to saudi...as for Assad, the Syrian government of Assad
supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious
world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In
this fight, UK and the usa are supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state
for financial gain. Disgraceful really,
Trump saw some pictures of the victims of this chemical attack so he launches. The same people
have been killed in their hundreds of thousands with reports of same coming in regularly. The
written reports have no impact on him as he doesn't /can't read but the pictures..
A clear demonstration of how easily he could be manipulated.
I think Trump just lost 50 million votes. And he knows it.
IMO there are only two options now.
1) Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over
the brink, or
2) He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't
feel that important anymore
The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya
and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent
President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up.
There is as per , no investigation in the Guardian's coverage . The ultimate in unethical journalism
being the quoting of ' sources ' and "' the Syrian opposition ' ( ISIS ) say ......"
The credibility of the Syrian Gov. s claim that :
a) It was bombing ' opposition ' ( ISIS ) occupied enclave and
b) The chemicals were contained on the ground there and were released only by bombing the fact
of Syrian bombing :
Is not even mentioned let alone investigated . Yet it is an infinitely logical , credible and
likely claim .
Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and
would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of
what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself .
It'll be interesting to see how the media reacts when Al Qaeda launch their next chemical attack
on civilians and blame it on the 'Regime' (Or 'government', if we're using correct terminology):
will they still insist it's the regime doing it, even now it's clear that using chemical weapons
will bring immediate retaliation from the USA? Yes, they probably will.
This whole thing stinks. Assad is a wanker but he is not stupid, there's no way he'd deliberately
lose a war he's currently certain to win, by doing the only thing that could possibly result in
western interference.
The only way I can see the chemical attack having been the work of Assad would be if the whole
Trump/Russia business goes deeper than we realise, and this whole episode has been premeditated,
I.E. Assad used chemical weapons with the express agreement of Trump, who could then be seen as
standing up for civilised values and in defiance of Russia by launching retaliatory strikes, after
which no more chemical attacks occur, making Trump look like the good guy and taking some of the
heat off him regarding his links to Russia, with Assad losing a couple of planes and a handful
of soldiers - no great loss in the grand scheme of things.
Other than that slightly far-fetched conspiracy theory, I can think of no reason of any sort
why Assad would seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The US attack was carried out in retaliation for what they believe was a chemical attack initiated
by Assad's forces. The US has not waited for a thorough and unbiased investigation.
Inevitably this means that blame for any subsequent incidents involving chemical weapons will
automatically be ascribed to Assad - not to do so would call into question the justification of
the US action carried out overnight. The rebels have a Trump card. If hard pressed they can manufacture
a chemical atrocity and call in the cavalry. Haley won't even have to hold up pictures of wounded
children.
While the western powers seem to have made up their mind that Assad was guilty of the poison gas
attack, serious doubts must remain. The explanation of the Assad government and Russia seem credible
to me. The dismissal of those explanations is very lightweight indeed. This amounts to two arguments.
1. Bombing a sarin gas chemical weapons store would not release the gas. Really? That defies
logic.
2. The rebels do not possess sarin gas? How do we know that?
Apart from the lack of a credible motive for the use of chemical weapons, Assad, like Sadam
Hussein before him claims he does not possess such weapons. As in 2003 this has not prevented
a US missile attack on a foreign state. Back in 2003, Sadam Hussein was eventually proved right
and we all know what happened after that.
What is the evidence that Assad's air force carried out this attack? This seems to rely on
the fact of the gas poisoning (which no-one is disputing) and witness statements from the area
under attack from the Syrian air force. This is Idlib, to where the allegedly murderous Assad
allowed free passage to armed jihadist terrorists humanely ejected (rather than killed or taken
prisoner) from other parts of Syria including East Aleppo, from where skilled propaganda outlets
fed the appetites of Western media including the disgraceful Ch4 News, which has again been agitating
for military action against the Syrian government.
It will clearly be very hard to find independent witnesses amongst such a population, heavily
controlled by Jihadist fighters well used to targeting civilian areas of government controlled
Syria.
This development is sinister indeed. That Trump has shown such willingness to take such extreme
action so quickly, without firm evidence, should make us all very, very afraid.
The Guardian reports "Syrian rebels have welcomed the attack" but want more. Job done and it was
so easy for them. They also have a, UN proven, history of setting off chemical weapons in order
to get the US etc involved.
Trimp's actions show that US policy never changes. It is defined not by US President, but by US
establishment. It can change it's forms but never cnages in essence. Republicans and Demoсrats
in US are two wings of one bird.
It seems, that Trump, had he had noble intensions to change it's policy for the good was swallowed
by establishment the same as it happened with any US president, from Kennedy to Nixon. Otherwise,
it again shows that he is a talanted populist which perfectly played at protest spirits against
messiah tensions and nepotism in US (the Clinton and Bush dynasties).
Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against
a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles
in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a
colt to his head.
And even in this case, you should beware of a shot in back when you put this colt off. This
is how the world now feels the US.
one Tomahawk costing 1,59 milion $ , so the US last night spend around 100 million $ .....Enjoying
the world s reserve currency and print as much as you want of it is comfy innit ? Attacking yet
another nation without irrefutable justification reminds me of the Iraq debacle and its WMD, the
US of course can get away with similar acts of war being the world s "stabilizer", diverting at
the same time the attention from the civilian bloodshed in Mosul and Yemen. Thank you US of A,
the world is happy to have you around the world.
BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income
of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase?
If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on
the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX?
Will the NRA get the "message"?
Its not bloody Trump that is the problem, is it? He didn't want to attack Syria, we did. All these
fucking news agencies spouting propaganda coming straight from Al Qaida and their supporters.
The Guardian like all the others have completely forgotten the fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and
are actually egging on for war. First they say Trump is dangerous to get into war and then the
same bloody people are demanding Trump to attack Syria!
This whole gas attack is the clearest red flag attack ever and every god damn main steam reporter
goes along with it, no questions asked.
Just look every single time an attack like this has occured just happens to be in what would
be the most illogical time for the Syrian government. Are you seriously saying that they are so
stupidly insane to think killing 100 people with gas is worth the diplomatic losses and military
wrath of the west? They could kill 1000 with conventional weapons, it makes zero sense.
Where is the god damn basic logic of looking at the beneficiaries to deduce the real motive
in what look like a murky issue.
The guardian quoting 'experts' saying a facility creating and stockpiling chemicals would not
leaked if bombed? Are you kidding me? You need incendiary napalm to burn the gas, but napalm is
porhibited and was NOT used in the alleged attack. Jeasus, use your god damn brain for once.
Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that
were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles
with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! Go back and look at them.
There are cars that look crumpled up, not burned and without any glass at all. That is impossible
to be as part of an attack by planes
Recruiting now! Western Dictator to run oil rich country in the Middle East. No experience necessary,
but must have a basic knowledge of civilian oppression, creating vacuums to religious extremists
and oil sales.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when:
A) It's almost sure to provoke a reaction from Trump, an unpredictable and untested US President.
B) Assad has almost won the war using conventional weapons.
C) It increases pressure from the World community to displace him.
D) It will piss of his major ally Russia, who just had to effectively run from American missiles
and have zero will for direct conflict with the US. This is a proxy war.
It makes zero sense. None whatsoever and I'm sorry I'm having a hard time believing it.
I'm no fan of Assad - his barrel bombs are disgusting enough. I'm no fan of Putin or the USA/Trump/the
Jihadi rebel extremists they've armed: So I'm taking no sides other than to say that this stinks
and looks exactly as if it was designed to escalate the conflict and get what a lot of people
want - US involvement in toppling Assad and sending a message to Russia and Iran.
Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump
is to manipulate.
"Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure
in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.
"The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar
(al-Assad) and his aides."
Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong?
Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad
will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank
America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America
As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria
and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many
times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power.
''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya
or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012.
A purely political act by Trump to show that he's not beholden to Putin in the face of mounting
concern about his campaign and the election. Red meat for the rednecks who backed him. Doesn't
bode well for the future - in flagrant breach of international law.
...
"There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations
under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN security council," Trump
said on Thursday night.
The challenge for this all-new season of Trump is that his first and biggest test is credibility.
The world needs to trust the United States: that these bombing targets are legitimate, that the
Syrian regime is indeed responsible, and that the president has the legal authority and political
support of the international community and Congress.
The strikes were senseless in that there is no proof of Syrian involvement in the chemical
attacks beyond information coming from Al Quaeda controlled territory.
Motive is important and Assad is no fool. Why on earth would he risk it all for no gain in using
chemical weapons when the war is all but won.
Trumps been hoodwinked by the neocons and war hungry establishment
Sarin is combustible. The agent may burn but does not ignite readily. Fire may produce
irritating, corrosive, and/or toxic gases. If a tank, rail car, or tank truck is involved in
a fire, isolate it for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions; also, consider initial evacuation
for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions.
Small spills (involving the release of approximately 52.83 gallons (200 liters) or less),
when sarin (GB) is used as a weapon.
For CNN, it took a war and pointed, globalist "rhetoric" for Trump to become President of the United
States. Per CNN host Fareed Zakaria on "New Day" this morning:
"I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night. I think this was actually
a big moment."
"Candidate Trump had said that he would never get involved in the Syrian civil war. He told President
Obama you can not do this without the authorization of Congress. He seemed unconcerned with global
norms."
"President Trump recognized that the President of the United States does have to act to enforce
international norms, does have to have this broader moral and political purpose. President Trump
realized, as every president has for many decades now, that they have inherent legal authority as
commander-in-chief and they don't have to go to a pesky Congress every time they want military force."
"For the first time really as president, he talked about international norms, international rules,
about America's role in enforcing justice in the world. It was the kind of rhetoric that we've come
to expect from American presidents since Harry Truman, but it was the kind of rhetoric that President
Trump had pointedly never used either on the campaign trail nor in his inaugural."
"So I think there has been an interesting morphing and a kind of education of Donald Trump."
"... Trump has broken his campaign promises, and stabbed his supporters in the back. He has done
exactly what I expected Hillary and Jeb to do ... left Obamacare in place and launched a sneak attack
on Syria. What's the point of voting in 2018? wolf pfizer 1 minute ago It's inter-religion war. Shiait
Asad and sunni Rebels. We don't need to get involved except for providing humanitarian assistance. There
is a false narrative that is being propagated here in the US about Rebels that somehow they are for
democracy. Don't be in any illusion that these Rebels are fighting for democracy. Average Syrian enjoyed
more personal freedom under Asad Regime compared to other Arab countries in that part of the world.
About the Chemical attack, the Rebels are vicious enough to carry out such attack and pin it on Asad.
Let neighboring countries take care of the situation. We should stay out and concentrate on our homeland.
We enough problems of our own here. Cory 3 minutes ago As Americans we NEVER like to admit when we get
something wrong. We always try to justify things by blaming someone else. The Dems blame the GoP. The
GoP blame the Dems. It's always something. The older generation likes to blame the younger and vice-
versa. The real fact is everything that is right or wrong in this country is the result of all of us.
The past 50 years BOTH parties have had ample opportunity to make changes and neither party has done
anything to make changes. Any policy Trump makes now someone else will change down the road, much like
Trump has done to Obama. Welcome to the new age of instability. notinmymane 6 minutes ago You Trumpanzees
got conned by a snake-oil salesman. Didn't you know that he was a conman before you voted for him? Stuuuuupid!
The Hated Stooge 6 minutes ago And The Trump Vaudeville Act circle's the globe with Creepy Kushner leading
the way. Kushner will fix everything. scrub 11 minutes ago For every Trump supporter who is upset with
his decision to bomb Syria there are a dozen or more who still stand behind him and that decision. Why
won't you do an article on that, Yahoo? Have you informed all the readers, pro and anti-Trump alike,
that Obama managed to bomb at least one Middle East country every day that he was in office (8 fecking
years, and that was over oil, not inhumane treatment of people)? Where's the outrage over that? Gertwise
12 minutes ago This is exactly what they voted for. They were warned, pleaded with, shown facts, and
they still voted him into office. You reap what you sow. Alex Verne 12 minutes ago He does not need
us anymore, ho ha new friends now. Neocons, Zionists even Clinton. The SWAMP loves him now, he IS the
SWAMP now. ..."
In the days since Trump brought the U.S. deeper into that country's six-year-old civil war, his
most fervent right-wing supporters have lashed out online, with many saying they feel betrayed.
It's true. Trump has broken his campaign promises, and stabbed his supporters in the back. He
has done exactly what I expected Hillary and Jeb to do ... left Obamacare in place and launched a
sneak attack on Syria.
What's the point of voting in 2018?
wolf pfizer 1 minute ago
It's inter-religion war. Shiait Asad and sunni Rebels. We don't need to get involved except
for providing humanitarian assistance. There is a false narrative that is being propagated here
in the US about Rebels that somehow they are for democracy.
Don't be in any illusion that these Rebels are fighting for democracy. Average Syrian enjoyed
more personal freedom under Asad Regime compared to other Arab countries in that part of the world.
About the Chemical attack, the Rebels are vicious enough to carry out such attack and pin it on
Asad. Let neighboring countries take care of the situation. We should stay out and concentrate
on our homeland. We enough problems of our own here.
Cory 3 minutes ago
As Americans we NEVER like to admit when we get something wrong. We always try to justify things
by blaming someone else. The Dems blame the GoP. The GoP blame the Dems. It's always something.
The older generation likes to blame the younger and vice- versa. The real fact is everything that
is right or wrong in this country is the result of all of us. The past 50 years BOTH parties have
had ample opportunity to make changes and neither party has done anything to make changes. Any
policy Trump makes now someone else will change down the road, much like Trump has done to Obama.
Welcome to the new age of instability.
notinmymane 6 minutes ago
You Trumpanzees got conned by a snake-oil salesman. Didn't you know that he was a conman before
you voted for him? Stuuuuupid! The Hated Stooge 6 minutes ago And The Trump Vaudeville Act circle's
the globe with Creepy Kushner leading the way. Kushner will fix everything. scrub 11 minutes ago
For every Trump supporter who is upset with his decision to bomb Syria there are a dozen or more
who still stand behind him and that decision. Why won't you do an article on that, Yahoo? Have
you informed all the readers, pro and anti-Trump alike, that Obama managed to bomb at least one
Middle East country every day that he was in office (8 fecking years, and that was over oil, not
inhumane treatment of people)? Where's the outrage over that?
Gertwise 12 minutes ago
This is exactly what they voted for. They were warned, pleaded with, shown facts, and they
still voted him into office. You reap what you sow.
Alex Verne 12 minutes ago
He does not need us anymore, ho ha new friends now. Neocons, Zionists even Clinton. The SWAMP
loves him now, he IS the SWAMP now.
The first question to be asked in such cases is "
Cue bono " "Commonly the phrase
is used to suggest that the person or people
guilty of committing a
crime may be found among those who
have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always
be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a
scapegoat , for example."
Notable quotes:
"... According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack. ..."
"... "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul. ..."
"... Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels. ..."
"... Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria. ..."
"... Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East? ..."
"... The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?". ..."
"... Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance. ..."
"... You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep." ..."
"... Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem. ..."
"... If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a... ..."
"... Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032... ..."
"... Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria... ..."
"... So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. ..."
"... Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp. ..."
"... No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. ..."
"... Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007 ..."
Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag
According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that
killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could
have been a false flag attack.
As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer
before the attack , with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.
"It looks like maybe somebody didn't like that so there had to be an episode," said Paul, asking,
"who benefits?"
" It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases
– I think there's zero chance he would have done this deliberately, " said Paul.
The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons
and the deep state to enlist support for war.
"It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed
the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said
Paul.
Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons
attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against
ISIS and jihadist rebels.
Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term
status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S.
foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.
Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing
establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another
massive war in the Middle East?
Manthong -> auricle •Apr 6, 2017 11:07 AM
If President Trump does not fire and publicly humiliate any of those who told him that the
Syrians attacked civilians with chemical weapons, he will lose a lot of respect from those of
us who know better.
Mr. Universe -> Manthong •Apr 6, 2017 12:10 PM
Tulsi Gabbard's Twitter is ablaze with "shame on you Tulsi, you know who is responsible as
you met with him a few months ago. "
The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point
for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?".
You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared,
and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or
gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder
video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot,
muttering, "Yep."
So I guess Assad should just utter, "Kids shouldn't have been in a war zone," and the rest
of the world would go, "Oh, yeah, that's how it works because that is what the U.S. explained
to us about those kids riddled with .50 calibers during the slaughter of those Reuters reporters
went. Everything's OK then."
Or they should have had more responsible father's, like the 16 year old Awlaki kid. That works
too, because that's how the U.S. rolls.
Besides, Assad could also just tell us how it's all worth it, kids dying, because that is another
acceptable rationalization per Albright.
In essence, there is a laundry list of 'acceptable' excuses Assad could use, because the U.S.
uses them all the time. Would save him a lot of trouble and this recent fakery wouldn't even have
to be denied.
Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated
by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders
using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help
those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem.
lets say we give most of the government their war they seem to want so desperately. How many
babies will we kill when we invade Syria? Children killed by our bombs are just as dead as babies
killed by gas.
You can't stockpile what kind of gas? I haven't heard anything specific regarding even the
cause of death of the victimized stage props used in this Made-For-TV drama.
Army: Disposal Of
Sarin Containers To Begin Next Spring When was that? What did the ASS press say? Sarin is
very soluble in water whereas other nerve agents are more sparingly soluble. VX has the unexpected
property of being soluble in cold water but sparingly soluble in warm water (>9.5 °C). What did
we see this morning? People in warm weather spraying down children without real protection from
Sarin.
Thanks Ron for pointing out the obvious! But you are the only MAN brave enough to say it.
Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to
politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some
how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything
within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria...
So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC
and media lapdogs. So CIA set their terrorist buddies to release chems in the vacinity of
a syrian bombing - easy to plan and do and then feed the brain dead media and Trump is ambushed
- textbook CIA
Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of
Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks
Trump deeper into their swamp.
Gee, the Syrian do one, single nerve agent bomb.....and they just hit kids. How accurate.
My fking ass. No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a
field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv
agent proof suits and sprayed them. Do the kids look like those Palestinian kids that are
supposedly shot, then get up and run away.
Of course the poor saps that we support would never stage a fake attack. ?
Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to
Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the
story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red
pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
[ to Neo who is choosing the red pill ] Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing
more.
Trump jumped like a trained dog when he answered the reporter's question about Syria yesterday.
Someone like Ron Paul has to help this man and by all means lets keep the laser pointers away
from him!! GEESCH!!
"... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council,
and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the
Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced.
Bloomberg has posted a
memo
from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security
Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals
Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role
for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.
Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered
"regular
attendees"
of the principals committee.
In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular
attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy,
Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland
security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA
director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.
The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for
national security, and the director of the Office of Management and
Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.
"Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last
administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized,"
Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.
"General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function,"
he added.
"... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
"... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
"... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes
the way he is indicating, he will lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions
like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never again be led down this road.
If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.
" we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers
are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and
it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.
But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of
your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much.
The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing
their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:
"... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council,
and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the
Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced.
Bloomberg has posted a
memo
from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security
Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals
Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role
for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.
Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered
"regular
attendees"
of the principals committee.
In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular
attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy,
Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland
security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA
director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.
The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for
national security, and the director of the Office of Management and
Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.
"Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last
administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized,"
Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.
"General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function,"
he added.
"... While he said this Susan Rice was "unredacting" the politically motivated surveillance of republicans, calling it "counter intelligence" while none of these people had any critical sensitive information to share unlike Clinton's 30000 e-mails. ..."
"... Those "unredactings" have been leaked to attempt to discredit the US elections. ..."
"... Seems Obama was surrounded by no one who was "serious/sensible" but many who used his office to attack the US Bill of Rights. ..."
In Oct 2016 Obama said "there is no serious/sensible person
who believes the US election could be hacked...."
While he
said this Susan Rice was "unredacting" the politically
motivated surveillance of republicans, calling it "counter
intelligence" while none of these people had any critical
sensitive information to share unlike Clinton's 30000
e-mails.
Those "unredactings" have been leaked to attempt to
discredit the US elections.
Seems Obama was surrounded by no one who was
"serious/sensible" but many who used his office to attack the
US Bill of Rights.
Since 9 Nov 16 the DNC and its media tools have tried a
coup by discrediting the US election using the security
apparatus to assault privacy and they got nothing!
Former CIA operations officer Scott Uehlinger, co-host of
The Station Chief
podcast,
talked about the
Susan Rice "unmasking" story
with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday's
Breitbart News Daily.
"I think it's an
issue which deeply concerns people like myself and other people, working-level
officers in the intel community," Uehlinger said. "Even though at this point,
there seems to be no evidence of breaking the law, this 'unmasking' of people was
ill-advised at best. I think it really shows that abuse of power and the fact that
many people in the Obama administration were willing to violate the spirit of the
laws designed to protect Americans, perhaps rather than the law itself."
... ... ...
"As a working-level CIA officer, we were always
told by upper authority, you're always told to – and the quote is – 'avoid the
appearance of impropriety,'" he said. "Well, this does not pass that smell test,
definitely."
Uehlinger said another thing
that concerns working-level officers in the intelligence and military communities
is "the American people, average Americans like myself, are tired of seeing two
sets of rules followed by the higher-ups and then the working-level people."
"This is just part of that again. A
working-level officer would have gotten into big trouble doing anything remotely
like this," he observed. "But now, we have a lot of people saying that she should
just be given a pass."
"While I understand, you know, it's important
that the Trump administration has to move forward with its domestic agenda, but
these allegations demand to be further investigated," he urged.
Kassam proposed that Democrats and their media
would not allow the Trump administration to move forward with any part of its
agenda until this "Russia hysteria" is cleaned up. That will be a difficult task
since, as Kassam noted, the hysteria has been burning at fever pitch for months
without a shred of evidence to back up the wildest allegations.
Uehlinger agreed and addressed Kassam's point
that media coverage alternates between "no surveillance was conducted" and "we
know everything about Trump's Russia connections."
"The Obama administration relaxed the rule that
allowed raw intelligence that was gathered by the NSA to be shared throughout the
government," he pointed out. "First of all, to relax that, there is absolutely no
operational justification for doing that. With all of the counter-intelligence
problems, with espionage, with Snowden, all these things we've had, to raise by an
order of magnitude the access to this very sensitive information makes no
operational sense at all."
"So for someone to approve that, it's clear they
had another intent, and I believe the intent was to allow for further leakage," he
charged. "To give more people access, thus more leaks, which, in fact, would hurt
the Trump administration. It seems very obvious when you put that together and
combine it with the actions of Susan Rice and other people in unmasking people.
That is the true purpose behind this."
"I say this as somebody who – you have to
remember, when I was a station chief overseas, this is what I was reporting on. I
was in countries like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kosovo – countries which constantly
had the offices of the prime minister or president using the intelligence services
to suppress the domestic opposition. So I've been to this rodeo before, many a
time. I saw the storm clouds gathering several weeks ago, and everything I've
suspected has so far come to fruition," Uehlinger said.
He pronounced it "very disappointing" that such
transparent abuse of government power for partisan politics would occur in the
United States.
"An intelligence service has to have the trust
of the people and the government in order to function effectively," he said. "With
all of these scandals happening, and with the name of perhaps the CIA and other
intelligence community elements in the mud, this makes the object of protecting
our national security more problematic. The agencies have to have the trust of the
American people, and they're losing it, because it seems as though they've been
weaponized – perhaps, like I said, not breaking the law but playing very close to
the line."
Kassam suggested that leaking the information
might have been illegal, even if Rice was legally entitled to request information
on Donald Trump's campaign and unmask the U.S. persons monitored during
surveillance of foreign intelligence targets.
"That's absolutely the case," Uehlinger agreed.
He went on to argue that the absence of hard evidence for any wrongdoing by the
Trump campaign in all of these leaks was highly significant.
"Since basically the Obama administration has
sort of loaded this with these rule changes and all to allow for leaks the fact
that there is no 'smoking gun' of Trump administration collusion with Russia
indicates that there isn't any. There is nothing substantial here because a juicy
morsel like that would certainly have been leaked by the same people that have
been leaking everything else. The fact it hasn't been leaked out means it does not
exist," he reasoned.
Kassam said some of the Russia hysteria came
from imputing sinister motives to conventional business dealings, arguing that
Trump's organization made deals around the world, and it is exceedingly difficult
to do business with any Russian entity that is not somehow connected to the
Russian government.
"That's an excellent point. You're absolutely
right," Uehlinger responded. "It shows these people who are doing these gambits
are relying on the relative ignorance of the American public of the actual nuts
and bolts of intelligence to make their point. Anyone with any background in this
stuff can see it for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit an
administration because they were crushed in the past elections."
Breitbart News Daily
airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. ..."
Speaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election,
Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if
Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody
else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.
Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama
administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week
highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by
members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members
of his campaign.
Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made
remarks
as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's
removal from office "pretty quickly."
Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton
administration, Farkas stated:
It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the
Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to
vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute
repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out
there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And
I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day
and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove that even
if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a
lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument –
they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the
fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances.
And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached
pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not
even joking.
Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the
conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied
Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the
Nov. 8 presidential election.
Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on
MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the
comments
, she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to
collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the
Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President
Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.
She continued:
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the
senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy
that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their
the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those
sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that
Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.
White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week
stated
:
[I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out
there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this
information around, that they went around and did this.
They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff.
And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious
questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think
that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.
Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned
in 2015.
She
told
the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I
had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have
access to any," she said.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas
denied
being a source of any leaks.
The Post reported:
Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she
"didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and
had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I
was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports
of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.
Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council,
which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released
numerous reports
and
briefs about Russian aggression.
The Council is
funded
by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and
NATO ACT. Another Council
funder
is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire
George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder
of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment
about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch
is a
nonresident senior
fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic
Council.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey
confirmed
that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to
confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines
themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that
ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never
asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not
in our job."
"... CIA officers penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose: ..."
As the facts about who surveilled whom during the transition get sorted out, it is useful to remember why Trump's team and his
supporters have reason to be suspicious, thanks to a long documented history of Obama using shady surveillance tactics on both political
opponents and international allies. Rhodes himself knows this history but that doesn't seem to matter as he once again attempts to
make people believe he fell out of the sky and onto Twitter on January 21st, 2017.
... ... ...
1. Fox News reporter James Rosen
In 2013 the news broke that Eric Holder's Justice Department
had spied on James Rosen . Obama's DOJ collected Rosen's telephone records as well as tracked his movements to and from the State
Department from where he reported. Rosen was named as a possible co-conspirator in a Justice Department affidavit. Rosen claims that
his parents phone line was also swept up in the collection of his records and DOJ records seem to confirm that. Despite the targeting
of Rosen, there were no brave calls to boycott the White House Correspondents Dinner.
2. Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA
CIA officers
penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's
Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose:
The CIA officials penetrated the computer network when they came to suspect that the committee's staff had gained unauthorized
access to an internal CIA review of the detention program that the spy agency never intended to give to Congress. A CIA lawyer then
referred the agency's suspicions to the Justice Department to determine whether the committee staff broke the law when it obtained
that document. The inspector general report said that there was no "factual basis" for this referral, which the Justice Department
has declined to investigate, because the lawyer had been provided inaccurate information. The report said that the three information
technology officers "demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities" during interviews with the inspector general.
The Obama White House defended CIA director John Brennan's actions and response. Imagine that.
3. Associated Press Phone Records
Much like James Rosen and his shady al Qaeda looking parents, Obama's Justice Department
secretly obtained months of phone records belonging to AP journalists while investigating a failed terror attack. And much like
the Rosen spying, this was personally approved by Attorney General Holder.
Mass surveillance and expansion of such under the Patriot Act is one of the most historically prevalent things about the Obama
administration. There's even a Wikipedia page
dedicated to that alone . So why
do the media and former administration officials act shocked and surprised when someone points the finger in their direction and
asks if targeting an incoming President is possible?
There is a long, decorated history of questionable-even unconstitutional-surveillance from the Obama administration none of which
proves Trump's twitter ravings to be true. But it certainly is enough to raise suspicions among Trump's supporters and even some
of this critics that he could be perfectly correct.
"... Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. ..."
Speaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election,
Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if
Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody
else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.
Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama
administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week
highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by
members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members
of his campaign.
Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made
remarks
as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's
removal from office "pretty quickly."
Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton
administration, Farkas stated:
It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the
Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to
vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute
repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out
there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And
I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day
and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove that even
if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a
lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument –
they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the
fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances.
And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached
pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not
even joking.
Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the
conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied
Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the
Nov. 8 presidential election.
Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on
MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the
comments
, she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to
collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the
Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President
Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.
She continued:
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the
senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy
that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their
the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those
sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that
Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.
White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week
stated
:
[I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out
there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this
information around, that they went around and did this.
They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff.
And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious
questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think
that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.
Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned
in 2015.
She
told
the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I
had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have
access to any," she said.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas
denied
being a source of any leaks.
The Post reported:
Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she
"didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and
had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I
was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports
of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.
Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council,
which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released
numerous reports
and
briefs about Russian aggression.
The Council is
funded
by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and
NATO ACT. Another Council
funder
is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire
George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder
of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment
about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch
is a
nonresident senior
fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic
Council.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey
confirmed
that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to
confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines
themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that
ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never
asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not
in our job."
If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who "stretched
the truth" about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members
of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she
told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately
spied on members of the Trump transition team.
"The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political
purposes," Rice told Mitchell. " That's absolutely false.... My job is to protect the American people
and the security of our country. "
"There was no such collection or surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals, it is important
to understand, directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals," Rice said.
EXCLUSIVE: Susan Rice says the claim that intelligence was used for political purposes is "absolutely
false" Watch: https://t.co/JdbgCtSgEN
"I don't solicit reports," Rice said Tuesday. "They're giving it to me, if I read it, and I think
that in order for me to understand, is it significant or not so significant, I need to know who the
'U.S. Person' is, I can make that request." She did concede that it is "possible" the Trump team
was picked up in "incidental surveillance."
"The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American
person is the same is leaking it - that's completely false," Rice said. "There is no equivalence
between so-called unmasking and leaking."
That said, Rice did not discuss what motive she may have had behind what Bloomberg, Fox and others
have confirmed, was her unmasking of members of the Trump team.
Rice also flatly denied exposing President Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn,
who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence
about the contents of a phone call with the Russian ambassador. Asked by Mitchell if she seeked to
unmask the names of people involved in the Trump campaign in order to spy on them, Rice says: "absolutely
not, for any political purpose, to spy, expose, anything." And yet, that is what happened. She was
then asked if she leaked if she leaked the name of Mike Flynn: "I leaked nothing to nobody."
In a follow up question, Rice said that when it comes to Mike Flynn with whom she had "civil and
cordial relations", that she learned "in the press" that he was an unregistered agent for the Turkish
government.
WATCH: Susan Rice says she learned from the press that Flynn was an unregistered agent for the
Turkish government https://t.co/xD41R2fbBL
We doubt that anyone's opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that,
in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his "honorable service"
and claimed he was captured "on the battlefield", and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that
she didn't know anything about the unmasking.
It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been "refreshed" about her role in the
unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.
On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request
she sidestepped on Tuesday. "Let's see what comes," she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify
on the matter. "I'm not going to sit here and prejudge."
"... This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration." ..."
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President
Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in
surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at
the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including
former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect
Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being
posed by the sources late Monday.
... ... ...
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former
Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly
speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get
as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration."
... ... ...
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader
powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability
to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several
Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks
on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Here are the highlights of Mitchell's interview with Rice, which took up the first
quarter-hour of Mitchell's show.
Rice admitted asking for the names of U.S. citizens in intelligence
reports to be "unmasked."
Rice said: "There were occasions when I
would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not
provided, just U.S. person. And sometimes in that context, in order to
understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was
necessary to find out, or request, the information as to who that U.S. official
was." Rice argued it was necessary for her and other officials to request that
information, on occasion, to "do our jobs" to protect national security.
Rice admitted asking specifically for the names of members of
Donald Trump's transition team.
She argued that she had not done so
for political purposes, however. Mitchell asked: "Did you seek the names of
people involved in - to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump
transition, the people surrounding the president-elect in order to spy on them
and expose them?" Rice answered: "Absolutely not for any political purposes to
spy, expose, anything."
Rice denied leaking the name of former General Michael Flynn.
"I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would." She added that
to discuss particular targets would be to reveal classified information.
She later walked back her denial. Mitchell: "The allegation is that you were
leaking the fact that he spoke to the [Russian] ambassador and perhaps to
others." Rice: "I can't get into any specific reports what I can say is there
is an established process."
Rice denied reports that she prepared a "spreadsheet" of Trump
transition staff under surveillance.
Mitchell asked specifically about
the
Daily Caller
story Tuesday: "They allege there was a spreadsheet you put out of all of these
names and circulated it." Rice: "Absolutely false. No spreadsheet, no nothing
of the sort." She said that unmasked names "was not then typically broadly
disseminated throughout the national security community or the government."
Rice said that even if she did request the names of citizens to
be unmasked, that did not mean she leaked them.
"The notion that by
asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it,
is completely false."
Rice admitted that the pace of intelligence reports accelerated
throughout the election.
She said she could not say whether the pace
of her "unmasking" requests accelerated, but she said there was increasing
concern, as well as increasing information, relating to the possibility of
Russian interference in the election, particularly after August 2016.
Rice implied that President Obama himself ordered the compilation
of intelligence reports on Trump officials.
" the president requested
the compliation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January
[2017]."
Rice said that she was unaware, even while working with Flynn
during the transition, that he was working for the Turkish government.
Mitchell
asked: "When did you learn that?" Rice answered: "In the press, as everybody
else did." Mitchell, incredulously: "You didn't know that, when you were
National Security Advisor?" Rice: "I did not."
Rice reiterated that President Obama never tapped Trump's phone.
"Absolutely
false there was no such collection [or] surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump
individuals directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals."
She did not deny that there might have been some surveillance by other
agencies, however. She said it was impossible for the White House to order such
surveillance, but that the Department of Justice could have done so.
Rice seemed aggrieved by Trump's claims.
"It wasn't
typical of the way presidents treat their predecessors."
Rice would not say whether she would be willing to testify on
Capitol Hill before Congress.
"Let's see what comes. I'm not going to
sit here and prejudge," she said. But she insisted that the investigations into
Russian interference in the presidential election were of interest to every
American citizen, and should be followed wherever the evidence leads.
White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested
the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to
the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's
policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic
eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted
from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting
the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's
multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition
activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed
more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign
officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members
of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said
they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team
was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the
identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations
surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.
Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates
and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the
House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White
House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates
incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked
on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were
swept up in incidental intelligence collection,
Rice said : "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman
Nunes on that account today."
Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate
Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There
remains no evidence to support that claim.
But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence
reports during the transition period does
highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that
it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This
suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.
The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It
emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive
allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he
said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive
branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council
that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports
on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these
reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself
and other members of the committee.
Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly
how and why it was disseminated.
"... And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact, the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway. Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump campaign might have committed? ..."
"... The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow" double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign officials' communications. ..."
"... And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame. ..."
"... Multiple senators are now demanding her testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow to emerge. It appears that Rice has issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia investigations will somehow deliver for them and become this president's Watergate. ..."
"... The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions under oath. ..."
"... How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors? ..."
"... Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama? ..."
It is said that Watergate wasn't about the crime, but about the coverup. Well, at least in the Watergate scandal, there was a
proper crime - specifically, the break-in and wiretapping. The media hasn't even settled on what to call its quest for a potentially
nefarious Russia-Trump link. The whole pursuit is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links," "ties," "associations"
or "contacts" with Russia. Since this is Washington, let's give it an acronym: L-TACs. With no end in sight, the manic pursuit of
L-TACs has produced a basket of denials, lies, half-baked plots, evasions, one-off non sequiturs, side tracks, conspiracies and suspicions
between the Trump administration, Democrats and the media. The frenzy has created a scandal without perpetrators or a crime. There
is a sense that Washington is on the brink, but no one can say on the brink of what.
When they have to be specific, some Democrats have settled on the idea that the Trump campaign may have collaborated with Russia
on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the John Podesta emails. There is no evidence of this, but it is worth remembering
a few things. First, the FBI was
aware of the DNC
hacking when it occurred. This was
confirmed again yesterday
in Politico's interview with Lisa Monaco
, who served as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism in the Obama White House. She said the
hacking was handled as a law enforcement matter. I assume she was referring to when the FBI called the dolts at the DNC, but the
DNC took no action.
Then-national security adviser Susan Rice is seen last year on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated
Press)
And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton
and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact,
the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway.
Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political
junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump
campaign might have committed?
The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow"
double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to
unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign
officials' communications. To unmask, or reveal, the identities of U.S. citizens whose names and conversations were gathered
through incidental collection is unusual.
And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump
campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security
adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame.
So, what was going on? Why did she do it? And with whom, in the government and the media, did she share the information?
Multiple senators are now
demanding her
testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow
to emerge. It appears that Rice has
issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that
there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia
investigations will somehow deliver for them and
become this president's Watergate.
The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search
of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions
under oath.
Washington is as scandal-primed as I've ever seen it - there is a lot of smoke right now, but no clear fire. So the noise and
finger-pointing will continue. And I have no idea who is winning. The pursuit of Trump may have caught the Obama White House
Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush White Houses and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which
he founded with former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour in 1991. Follow @EdRogersDC
Bigly Fan 5:38 PM EDT
How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors?
theworm1 5:37 PM EDT
"The whole pursuit [ of Trump's Russian engagement] is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links', 'ties', 'associations'
or 'contacts'" . These are the same nouns the media uses to describe the alleged "connections" between al Qaeda and Saddam and
between ISIS and whoever we don't like today. They carry meaning or they don't. I think most people think they do.
Io fifty 5:37 PM EDT
I just read in Breitbart, sure you have too Mr. Rogers ...... that Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place
within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama?
"... A Monday report by Bloomberg's Eli Lake said that Rice requested the unmasking of Trump officials. Names of Americans swept up incidentally in the collection of intelligence are normally masked, or kept redacted, in intelligence briefings ..."
"... the former official did not dispute the reporting by Bloomberg. ..."
A Monday report by Bloomberg's Eli Lake said that Rice requested the unmasking of Trump officials.
Names of Americans swept up incidentally in the collection of intelligence are normally masked, or
kept redacted, in intelligence briefings . However, the law provides for much leeway when it
comes to unmasking by National Security Council officials, which suggests that Rice's request was
legal.
This type of request was not a special practice related to the Trump transition team, though
the former official did not dispute the reporting by Bloomberg.
As a procedural matter, an intelligence briefer would have had to clear a requested unmasking
with the head of the agency providing the intelligence. It is unclear why these intelligence intercepts
were considered so important that they would need to be shared with the president's national security
adviser.
A former national security official told CBS News that when such information on U.S. individuals
is approved and provided by the intelligence community, it is typically given directly to the senior
official who made the request and is not broadly disseminated.
On some occasions, the official added, it is necessary to know the identity of U.S. persons in
order to understand the context and substance of the intelligence. There is nothing improper, unusual
or political about such requests.
President Donald Trump tweeted last month
that Trump Tower had been wiretapped by President Obama , a claim for which there is still no
evidence. Later, House Intelligence chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.,
said he had obtained evidence showing that the names of Trump associates that were swept up incidentally
by intelligence agencies had been unmasked. That evidence is believed to have been provided to Nunes
by the White House.
Rice had said that she was unaware of the names of Trump officials being swept up incidentally
by intelligence agencies. "I know nothing about this," she told "PBS NewsHour" last month when asked
about Nunes' claim.
"... Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the " most influential " people in news media in 2016. His new book, ..."
"... , is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak . ..."
President Barack Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly
ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign aides during the last election,
and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.
The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by
blogger
Mike Cernovich
and
Eli Lake
of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides' names to be
"unmasked" in intelligence reports. The alleged "unmasking" may have been legal,
but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to
disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the
aim of leaking them to the press.
At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News
compiled
the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking - all based
on mainstream media reports - the mainstream media dismissed the story as a "
conspiracy
theory
."
Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader
allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of
the Obama administration's alleged surveillance continue to emerge.
"What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice
were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump
associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told
The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
"The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the
Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short,
the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the
calls."
The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly "ordered one year
before the 2016 presidential election." According to a
Fox
News
report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.
Rhodes and Rice were both implicated in a disinformation campaign to describe
the Benghazi terror attack in Sep. 2012 as a protest against a YouTube video.
Rhodes also boasted of creating an "
echo
chamber
" in the media to promote the Iran deal, feeding stories to contrived
networks of "experts" who offered the public a steady stream of pro-agreement
propaganda.
On Monday, Rhodes
retweeted
a CNN story quoting Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claiming that the alleged
unmasking was "nothing unusual."
To the extent they have reported the surveillance story at all, CNN and other
news outlets have focused on Trump's
tweets last month
that alleged President Obama had "wiretapped" Trump Tower,
describing the claims as unfounded.
CNN continued treating story dismissively on Monday, with
The Lead
host Jake Tapper insisting allegations of Russian interference in the election
were more important than what he referred to as the president's effort to distract
from them.
Later in the day, host Don Lemon
declared
he would ignore the surveillance story and urged viewers to do
likewise.
The potential abuse of surveillance powers for political purposes has long
troubled civil libertarians, and could affect the re-authorization of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act later this year.
Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on former National
Security Advisor Susan Rice to be brought in front of Congress under subpoena and
asked questions about allegations she was behind the unmasking of American
identities in raw surveillance.
Paul also said she should be asked about former President Barack Obama's
knowledge of these alleged activities.
"For years, both progressives and libertarians have been complaining about
these backdoor searches," Paul said. "It's not that we're searching maybe one
foreign leader and who they talk to; we search everything in the whole world.
There were reports a couple of years ago that all of Italy's phone calls were
absorbed in a one month period of time. We were getting Merkel's phone calls; we
were getting everybody's phone calls. But by rebound we are collecting millions of
Americans phone calls. If you want to look at an American's phone call or listen
to it, you should have to have a warrant, the old fashioned way in a real court
where both sides get represented."
"But a secret warrant by a secret court with a lower standard level because
we're afraid of terrorism is one thing for foreigners but both myself and a
Progressive Ron Wyden have been warning about these back door searches for years
and that they could be politicized," he continued. "The facts will come out with
Susan Rice. But I think she ought to be under subpoena. She should be asked did
you talk to the president about it? Did President Obama know about this? So this
is actually, eerily similar to what Trump accused them of which is eavesdropping
on conversations for political reasons."
Below are five facts from Susan Rice scandals every American should know.
1. Susan Rice allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's 2016
election campaign aides as part of a political intelligence
operation.
Rice allegedly maintained spreadsheets of Trump aides' telephone calls "one
year before the 2016 presidential election," according to the Daily Caller.
"What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice
were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump
associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told
The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
"The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the
Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short,
the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the
calls."
... ... ...
5. Susan Rice was the driving force behind a misinformation
campaign about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attacks.
Then-UN Ambassador Rice, acting as the Obama White House's spokeswoman,
appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly claimed that the
Benghazi attacks had been caused by an anti-Islam video.
Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN and regurgitated talking
points purporting that the protests that had erupted "spontaneously" near two U.S.
government facilities in Benghazi, Libya and were a result of a "hateful video"
that was offensive to Islam.
But government
documents
,
released following a Judicial Watch lawsuit, reveal that government officials
monitoring the attack in real-time did not cite an anti-Islam video as an
explanation for the paramilitary attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in
Benghazi.
In May 2015 interview, former Obama CIA Director Mike Morell said Rice's
Benghazi talking points blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video crossed "the line
between national security and politics."
"I think the line in there that says one of our objectives here right on the
Sunday show is to blame the video rather than a failure of policy," Morell
said
on Fox News'
Special Report.
"And as you know, I say in the book
that I think that that is crossing the line between national security and
politics."
"I do think there is a crisis, on many fronts," Drudge admitted.
"Is some of it of his own making?" he asked before going to calls.
The DrudgeReport.com founder indeed invoked his former radio host days when he joined Savage in California to celebrate the
veteran broadcaster's 75th birthday.
"We're trying to save this young Trump administration," Drudge declared.
Drudge claimed Trump single-handedly saved floundering leftist media outlets like the New York Times and Vanity Fair, which
seemed destined to fail before the "opposition" party "consolidated."
"I'm getting a little bit nervous about the media situation. Do you know, the media was near death. The New York Times was
hanging on the short hairs. Do you know Vanity Fair was going under. CNN barely had a fraction," Drudge said. "Trump has saved
the media."
The influential news figure also called attention to the president's flagging approval ratings in Rasmussen polls, which he
is concerned currently spell danger for the Trump administration.
"... Additionally, the Friday Fox News report cited "a number of sources" with claims that not only were the two White House officials not the sources of the information shared with Nunes, but that Nunes knew of the information in January, and that the agencies where the information came from had blocked Nunes from gaining access to it. Further, the report cited officials within the agencies who said they were frustrated with the spreading of names for political purposes. ..."
After
slamming NBC's coverage
of the "Fake Trump/Russia story",
congratulating
the NYTimes
for "finally getting it" on Obamacare, Trump on Saturday commented on
the previously discussed Fox News story about a "very senior, very well known" U.S.
intelligence official who was allegedly involved in unmasking the names of Trump
associates, and who had reprotedly surveilled Trump before the nomination.
"Wow,
@FoxNews just reporting big news. Source: 'Official behind unmasking is high up. Known
Intel official is responsible. Some unmasked not associated with Russia. Trump team
spied on before he was nominated. If this is true, does not get much bigger. Would be
sad for U.S.," he added.
Wow,
@FoxNews
just
reporting big news. Source: "Official behind unmasking is high up. Known Intel
official is responsible. Some unmasked....
As
discussed Friday night
, A Fox News source (unnamed, because these days that's all
there is, just ask the NYT and Wapo) said that the U.S. official behind the systematic
unmasking of Trump associates and private individuals was "very well known, very high
up, very senior in the intelligence world" and was doing so for political, not nationa
security reasons, intent on "hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team." In other
words, another intel agency war between the old, pro-Hillary Clinton, guard and the new
administration.
Additionally, the Friday Fox News report cited "a number of sources" with claims that
not only were the two White House officials not the sources of the information shared
with Nunes, but that Nunes knew of the information in January, and that the agencies
where the information came from had blocked Nunes from gaining access to it. Further,
the report cited officials within the agencies who said they were frustrated with the
spreading of names for political purposes.
"Our sources, who have direct knowledge of what took place, were upset because those
two individuals, they say, had nothing to do with the outing of this information," Fox
reported.
"We've learned that the surveillance that led to the unmasking of what started way
before President Trump was even the GOP nominee," Fox News reported Adam Housley said.
"The person who did the unmasking, I'm told, is very well known, very high up, very
senior in the intelligence world and is not in the FBI."
"This led to other surveillance which led to multiple names being unmasked. Again
these are private citizens in the United States," said Housley. "
This had
nothing to do with Russia, I'm told, or foreign intelligence of any kind."
"Fox also learned that an individual with direct knowledge that after Nunes had been
approached by his source, the agencies basically would not allow him in at all," said
Housley.
Understandably, the Fox News report has gotten zero media attention on any other news
outlet.
Intel Official Behind "Unmasking" Of Trump Associates Is "Very Senior, Very
Well Known"
Day after day, various media outlets, well really mostly the NYT and WaPo, have
delivered Trump-administration-incriminating, Russia-link-related tape bombs sourced via
leaks (in the hope of keeping the narrative alive and "resisting."). It now turns out,
according to FXN report
, that the US official who "unmasked" the names of multiple
private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone "
very well known,
very high up, very senior in the intelligence world."
As Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley report
, intelligence and House sources with
direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names (yes, yet another "unnamed
source") said that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, now knows who is
responsible - and that person is not in the FBI (i.e. it is not James Comey)
Housley said
his sources were motivated to come forward by a New York Times
report yesterday which reportedly outed two people who helped Nunes access
information during a meeting in the Old Executive Office Building.
However, Housley's sources claim the two people who helped Nunes "navigate" to the
information were not his sources. In fact,
Nunes had been aware of the information
since January (long before Trump's 'wiretap' tweet) but had been unable to view the
documents themselves because of "stonewalling" by the agencies in question.
Our sources: This surveillance that led to the unmasking of
private names of American citizens started before Trump was the GOP nominee.
For a private citizen to be "unmasked," or named, in an intelligence report is
extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to
be named to explain the context of the report.
"The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of
private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have
nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia's interference in
the U.S. election,"
a congressional source close to the
investigation told Fox News
.
The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what
improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They've been
emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official
Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on
Trump team contacts with Russia.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and
other reports raise "serious" concerns about whether there was an "organized and
widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive
intelligence information for political purposes."
"Dr. Farkas' admissions alone are devastating," he said.
The Trump folks,
if they found out how we knew what we knew
about
the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that
they would try to compromise
those sources and methods
, meaning we would not longer have access to that
intelligence.
Furthermore, Farkas effectively corroborated a
New
York Times article
from early March which cited "Former American officials"
as their anonymous source regarding efforts to leak this surveillance on the Trump
team to Democrats across Washington DC.
* * *
In addition, citizens affiliated with Trump's team who were unmasked were not
associated with any intelligence about Russia or other foreign intelligence, sources
confirmed. The initial unmasking led to other surveillance, which led to other private
citizens being wrongly unmasked, sources said.
"
Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes ...
specifically of Trump transition team members ... is highly suspect and questionable
,"
according to an intelligence source. "Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies
who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was
elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by
one."
* * *
So if the source isn't Comey, has anyone seen Jim Clapper recently? The answer should
emerge soon, meanwhile the ridiculous game with very high stakes of spy vs spy, or in
this case source vs source, continues.
So sorry. Journalism is shit. Very tired of 'source' stories. Cannot trust
any of this crap. Breathless reporters --"We've been talking to sources...."
BFD. Give me a fucking break. Fox tries a little bit of the time, but Fox is
no better than NBC or CNN. Journalists today have no courage. They write
these stories for each other, not for me and you.
There are no journalists; they are simply pritning whatever they are given
by the "sources". They show no curiosity, no suspicion, too credulous to be
a journalist and these are really end times for the MSM.
You are correct. They have been exterminated
... along with the need for truth in media. Since 9-11, all over the
world there has been a concerted and determined effort to target and
remove all those who would stay true to the principles of that craft.
And, to in their place, raise up a raft of imitators who style themselves
reporters, but need have no accountability, nor take the trouble to ever
leave their computer screens to go and "follow" a story.
But what most folks don't see is that this faux-journalism is a direct
consequence of the so-called 'new media' - packaged as "alternative
media" in order to
seem
a challenge and
opposition to special interest groups controlling all communication
channels - but actually just more special interests with even less
accountability!
"There is no longer a stage, not even the minimal illusion that
makes events capable of adopting the force of reality-no more stage
either of mental or political solidarity
:
Only the medium can
make an event - whatever the contents, whether they are conformist or
subversive.
AND -
There are no more media in the literal sense
of the word - that is, of a mediating power between one reality and
another, between one state of the real and another."
The role of medias, in other words, has switched from 'mediating'
between real events and the reader... to medicating the reader with
concocted storylines custom made to appeal to the pre-existing
information preferences of same.
Even more ominously, with the arrival of the TRUMP TWITTER medium, we
reach the full blossoming of the point predicted last year - when a
government staged a coup against itself, using the tools of social media
to coverup their ruse!
https://storify.com/SuaveBel/requiem-for-the-media
"The State has subsumed the role and space of "the media" in
organizing and communicating with "the people." It has re-defined the
terms "democracy" and "participation" on it's own terms, and in
picking up the social media tools which had formerly belonged to "the
people" as a network of communicants, relegated "the media" to the
role of gelded hierophant!"
All of which has been blandly accepted and passed over by a
web-entranced audience which has given over critical thinking skills to a
cabal of 'communications experts' determined to put the lie to that old
adage - 'you can't fool all of the people, all of the time!'
They got that fucker now, whom ever it was. I hope we can finally see some of
the other media pick up on this blockbuster story, probably not though, they
are completely out of their minds with irrationality.
I'd like to see Clapper
get 10 years in buttfuck prison where leroy and shantis practice using their
10" BBCs to make him watertight. Whom ever did this is a complete piece of shit
just like most of the other libtards that don't give a shit about the rule of
law or basic fairness.
Either way, the cat's out of the bag and CNN, et al, won't be able to ignore
this much longer. This story, unlike the Russian fairy tale, actually has some
proof and they will get to the bottom of this crime.
I wish (and hope) you're right. But remember, the intelligence community is
best at misdirection, obfuscation, deceit, and manipulation. If there was
ever a group that could successfully distract or 'arrange' an alternate
truth, it's them.
Isn't Obama pretty much immune from any prosecution? Sure, his reputation
or "legacy" can be tainted (meaning more people will realize what an
a$$clown and criminal he was), but you can't do anything to him, can you?
We have seen no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and we all know the same
people leaking and smearing Trump aren't waiting for some special moment to
release it....it never works that way and he would not have been allowed by NSA
or CIA to take power if they had it...
Nunes and Schiff have seen info that
was compartmentalized to executive branch obviously, which is all branches
appointed by president CIA,NSA,Defense(Farkas),State(Hillary) etc etc
This has been a set up by Trump from beginning. Flynn knew all his calls
were being recorded and he was fired after eaks to the NYT and WAPO. He
questioned why the info on ISIS he was writing up as head of Defense
Intelligence Agency was being down played and ignored by the half breed...Flynn
will blow the doors off this entire thing...Look up his career...He is a top
level intelligence operative with an ax to grind..He is not some flunky and he
has many sources all throughout the intelligence branches...Nicely played
President Trump...Job is much easier dealing with simpletons
It is definitely someone from the executive branch and that includes CIA
head..The SCIF they are going to is in the old executive office building and
only deals with executive..... state,defense,CIA,NSA etc etc
If I understand correctly, the intel official behind the unmasking of
folks affiliated with Trump campaign, which was taking place dating back
to last summer, is a separate issue from who sheperded Nunes into the
SCIF on the WH grounds (so that he could see docs he had been stonewalled
from seeing), reported to be Ezra Cohen-Watnick of the NSC.
The faction which killed JFK and MLK to send us as papal catspaw to Vietnam
after the president ordered us out with 120 dead; and to restart the Vatican
banker/FedScam he had ended, went on to do 9/11 and is terminally threatened by
God-fearing Americans.
May God bless our president and may Satan's ruling
false-elite pedo homo Fifth Column Beast of (((Gog))) and Babylon on Our Holy
Land be soon cast down, praise God.
Folls forget Trump already ran a sting on his Intel briefing during transistion.
When he was briefed on piss dossier and told no one on his staff, then it was
leaked to press immediately afterwards..President Trump is using tactics folks
like General Flynn perfected in 33 years in the intelligence service.
Funny
shit this letter by Clapper..Trump has been playing these folks BIGLY
"... From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius. ..."
"... Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. ..."
"... The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one. ..."
"... On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it? ..."
"... This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin." ..."
"... Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in. ..."
"... While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it. ..."
"... With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all. ..."
Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman
Adam Schiff have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. They
should think twice. The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.
The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak . On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius
reported that "according to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
several times on Dec. 29."
From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama
official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius.
Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. But it
was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA
surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White
House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the
lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.
The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and,
at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.
On Dec. 29, Obama
announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the
White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia
connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.
A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. On Dec. 30, the Washington Post
reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department.
After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek
to crash the system, or just to probe it?
This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election.
The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that
the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin."
The national media mimicked the Post's reporting. But there was a problem: the
hack
never happened . It was a false alarm - triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama's hype.
On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI
published
a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. "At every level this report
is a failure,"
said
cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. "It didn't do what it set out to do, and it didn't provide useful data. They're handing
out bad information."
Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained.
The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong
to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator
dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered
on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.
While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele
dossier, which
claimed
that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research
paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had
circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable,
however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.
With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government
leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing
it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.
By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. Ignatius
used the leak to
deepen speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: "What did Flynn say (to Kislyak)," Ignatius asked, "and did it undercut
the U.S. sanctions?" The mere fact that Flynn's conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. If he was innocent,
why was the government monitoring him?
It should not have been. He had the right to talk to in private - even to a Russian ambassador. Regardless of what one thinks
about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security
state and our domestic politics. The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. At stake is a core principle of our democracy:
that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.
"... We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. ..."
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511
January 11, 2017
DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump
This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing
last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are
extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.
We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members
of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence
Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information
in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure
that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.
President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured
him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel,
Wall Street Journal ]. Why Nunes left
his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information
about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished"
intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the
relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained
was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2")
they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump
official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
Mr. Schiff's howls about Mr. Nunes's methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well.
It would be interesting to know if this was still going on. And from the other side of the aisle:
Readers, those of you who can endure tweet storms and clicked through, what do you think of these three?
"The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant
of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [
NBC ].
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [
Raw Story ]. You knew this was coming, right? The story is just as sloppy and misleading as the headline. For example: "Over
time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname 'Bernie Bros.'" Note lack of agency in "became known"; #BernieBro
was in fact propagated by Clinton supporters. And then there's this: "'Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge
within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group," said [Retired Gen. Keith Alexander - former director
of the National Security Agency]. "And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.'" Where to begin? Can Alexander really
mean that Sanders and Clinton supporters wouldn't be in conflict if it weren't for the evil Russkis? Or Republicans and Democrats?
I hope when Alexander analyzes Lower Slobovia he does a better job.
"... Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous. ..."
"... And the trust in the honor and integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an objective press. ..."
"... I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens. And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping. ..."
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal]. Why Nunes
left his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that
documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of,
Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since
they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see.
Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove
of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump
officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to
Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for
instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear
which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a
Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these
documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
=============================================================
Other than right wing sites, this is the first instance of the argument I have
seen of the repubs that has been put forward coherently and the issue stated
cogently. That does not mean its true, but at least it is put forward.
I was watching CNN last night and the blonde commentator woman (Kirsten ???)
put forward the proposition that the intelligence agencies "collecting"
information on Trump associates does not mean Trump associates were surveilled
– now this was in the context that the discussion was about the fact that Trump
individuals were supposedly illegally "unmasked" by the intelligence agencies
because the information was ..collected because they were under surveillance.
Parsing "collection: vs "surveilling" was disingenuous beyond reality. One can
put forward the idea that Trump personnel had conversations because of
"incidental collection" or that Trump personnel are lawbreakers or treasonous
as a reason for the surveillance (if surveillance happened – it seems obvious
that it did happen) and the surveillance was legitimate.
Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to
continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not
surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous.
Again, I just see purposeful obtuseness. And the trust in the honor and
integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when
there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an
objective press.
I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence
peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama
administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from
classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence
gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the
common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking
from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire
to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens.
And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping.
"... "The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day." ..."
"... TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments. ..."
"... The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had "misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information." ..."
The White House on Friday revived President Trump's unproven wiretapping allegations against the Obama administration, insisting
that there is new evidence that it conducted "politically motivated" surveillance of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign.
Senior government officials, including James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, and lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly and
forcefully rejected the president's claim, saying they have seen no evidence of direct surveillance. A spokesman for former President
Barack Obama has denied that Mr. Obama ever ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump or his associates.
But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, asserted to reporters during his daily news briefing that members of Mr. Obama's
administration had done "very, very bad things," just as Mr. Trump
alleged without proof on March 4 when
he posted messages on Twitter accusing Mr. Obama of
"wire tapping" his phones at Trump Tower.
"The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that
continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day."
... ... ...
Mr. Spicer's remarks on Friday seemed designed to give new life to the allegations against Mr. Obama after weeks of trying to
focus attention on the damage that Mr. Spicer said had been caused by leaks from the investigations into Russia's involvement in
the 2016 presidential campaign.
TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had
disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show
that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments.
In fact, the reports do not back up the allegations that Mr. Trump or any officials in his campaign were ever under surveillance.
In the March 2 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Ms. Farkas said she had expressed concern to her former colleagues about
the need to secure intelligence related to the Russian hacking of the American election.
Ms. Farkas was commenting on a New York Times article a day earlier that documented how in the days before Mr. Trump's inauguration,
Obama administration officials had sought to ensure the preservation of those documents in order to leave a clear trail for government
investigators after Mr. Trump took office.
In a statement she gave to the American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ms. Farkas said the furor over her remarks was
"a wild misinterpretation of comments I made on the air in March." She added, "I was out of government, I didn't have any classified
information, or any knowledge of 'tapping' or leaking or the N.Y.T. article before it came out." White House officials also confronted
on Friday the disclosure that Mr. Flynn, who resigned in February over his contacts with Russian officials, has offered to testify
before the two congressional committees investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia about those contacts in exchange for immunity
from prosecution.
Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning that he agreed with Mr. Flynn's proposal.
"Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic
proportion!" Mr. Trump wrote.
The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information
unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had
"misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information."
March 26, 2017
Having spent the last six months preparing a history of Harvard University's
mission to Moscow in the 1990s and the scandal that ensued (to appear sometime
this summer), I have often been reminded of William Faulkner's
apothegm
: "The past
is never dead. It's not even past." This is as true of the Trump-Russia story as
it is of the larger and more intricate realm of US-Russia relations since the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
Holman Jenkins, Jr., the least predictable
columnist at
The Wall Street Journal
,
noted
last week (subscription required) that Watergate analogies in the Trump
Russia controversy are beside the point. What is wanted, he wrote, is a Pentagon
Papers-style history of US policy, "an emptying out of the files" necessary to
illuminate the "awkward, contradictory and humiliating straddles" of Western
governments over the last twenty-five years.
Alas, we are unlikely to get that kind of retrospective from WikiLeaks. What is
required instead is a great deal of shoe-leather reporting. An especially good
example was to be found ten days ago in
The Rich Refugees Who Saved Trump
, by Caleb Melby and Keri Geiger, with
Michael Smith, Alexander Sazenov, and Polly Mosendz, writing in
Bloomberg
Businessweek
.
When Trump World Tower at
845 United Nations Plaza
began construction two decades ago as the tallest residential building in the
country (90 stories), its most expensive floors attracted wealthy people
getting their money out of what had been the Soviet Union. Trump needed the big
spenders. He was renegotiating $1.8 billion in junk bonds for his Atlantic City
resorts, and the tower was built on a mountain of debt owed to German banks.
The story is the most plausible account I've yet seen of what Trump's oldest
son, Donald Jr., may have meant when he said, in 2008, "We see a lot of money
pouring in from Russia." In the earlier case reported by
BBw
, the deluge
occurred at a most propitious time, in the late 1990s, when Trump's business was
stretched thin and under stress.
Trump broke ground on the building in October 1998, across the street from the
United Nations headquarters. After several years of boisterous churn and at long
last some growth, the Russian economy was in crisis. The ruble had collapsed in
August; the government had defaulted on its domestic debt. Savvy Russians had
scrambled to get their money out of the country. From the article:
Real Estate provides a safe haven for overseas investors. It has few
reporting requirements and is a preferred way to move cash of questionable
provenance. Amid the turmoil, buyers found a dearth of available projects.
Trump World Tower, opened in 2001, became a prominent depository of Russian
money.
Others who bought units in the building, with its
72 constructed floors
and 90 stories listed on its elevator panels,
included New York Yankee
shortstop Derek Jeter, Bill Gates, Harrison Ford, Sophia Loren, and Kellyanne
Conway and her husband, according to Wikipedia.
BBw
reported that
The very top floors remained unsold for years but a third of the units sold
on floors 76 through 83 by 2004 involved people or limited liability
corporations connected to Russia and neighboring states, a Bloomberg
investigation shows. The reporting involved more than two dozen interviews and
a review of hundreds of public records in New York.
Trump scholars gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in the
complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position in those days. For an
explication of some of the favors owed, which in one case went back to 1976, see
the
current article
. This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia
as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty years. Again,
BBw:
Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer Gil Dezer and his
father, Michael, were building a Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles
Beach, Fla. "Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that Russians
and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000 units in Trump buildings he
built. They flooded into Trump projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump
weather the real estate collapse, he says.
A similar situation, this one involving a troubled midtown Manhattan building
owned by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and a billionaire Chinese would-be
investor, was covered in some detail earlier this month by
The New York Times
and the
WSJ
(subscription required). The next step is to follow Bloomberg's
team in tracing Trump's dealings with Russians back in time.
My hunch is that the
WSJ's
Jenkins is right, that the 2016
campaign-collusion story will turn out to be a dead end. Much more interesting is
the saga of the formation of Trump's views of Russia over the last twenty-five
years
"... "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC]. ..."
"The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in
exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC].
So what's the over/under on this?
My speculation is Flynn doesn't have anything to say about Trump. He just
doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head. But if he's got
nothing to contribute, that means Flynn is more valuable to anti-Trump forces
if he doesn't open his mouth – gotta keep the other narratives going.
Indeed for Mr. McCain the
belief that Russia
must be destroyed has been elevated to the status of a self evident and received truth.
Origins of the 'Dodgy Dossier'
It was McCain who passed
the "dodgy dossier" on Trump to the FBI, after receiving it from former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood. Contained
within the dossier is information purporting to reveal how Trump has been compromised by Russian intelligence over various sexual
encounters with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. Compounding the scandal, adding to the lurid nature of it, are reports of
the existence of a second Russian dossier on the President-elect.
The dossier's originator has been revealed as former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who now runs a private
intelligence company and has, according to reports, gone into hiding in the UK, supposedly fearing assassination by Russian agents.
The fact that Mr. Steele hasn't set foot in Russia for a number of years and reportedly, on behalf of Trump's enemies within
the Republican Party establishment, paid for the information contained in the 35-page dossier, recently released with the caveat
that its contents cannot be verified, should have been more than enough to have it instantly dismissed as, well, fake news?
In an
article that appeared on the UK's Independent newspaper website - titled "The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds
me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction" - Patrick Cockburn writes, "I read the text
of the dossier on
Donald Trump's alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief." Later in the same
article he observes, "In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious
document."
More significant than the fact this dossier was not immediately dismissed is the timing of its emergence and subsequent publication
by the US news site, BuzzFeed. It comes on the very cusp of President-elect Donald Trump's official inauguration as the 45
th President of the United States on January 20th, and the very point at which his cabinet appointees were being grilled
over their views of Russia, the threat Russia allegedly poses to the US and the West, during their official Senate confirmation
hearings.
Political Coup Underway Against Trump
By now most people are aware, or at least should be, of Washington's long and ignoble history when it comes to fomenting, planning,
supporting, and funding political and military coups around the world - in Central and Latin America, the Middle East, Africa,
and elsewhere the CIA and other US agencies have brought down countless leaders and governments that have refused to toe the line
when it comes to serving US interests.
In unprecedented fashion, what we have in this instance are those same deep state actors, working in conjunction with the US
liberal establishment, currently engaged in a coup designed to destroy the Trump presidency - if not before it begins then certainly
soon after, with the prospect of impeachment proceedings against him already being
mooted in Washington circles.
During his recent press
conference , Trump felt minded to declaim against Washington's bloated intelligence community, accusing it of releasing the
dossier to the media, an allegation US intelligence chiefs have denied. The result is an unprecedented open war between the country's
next president and his soon-to-be intelligence services that has pitched the country into a political crisis that grows deeper
by the day.
The Power of the Military Industrial Complex
On the question of why the US deep state and Washington's liberal establishment is so intent on maintaining Russia in the role
of deadly enemy, the answer is very simple - money.
Huge and powerful economic and ideological interests are tied up in the new Сold War of the past few years.
We're talking the country's previously mentioned gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets, continuing US support and financing
of NATO, along with reason for the continued existence and funding of the vast network of political think tanks in Washington
and throughout the West, all of which are committed to sustaining a status quo of US hegemony and unipolarity.
Russia's emergence as a strategic counterweight to the West in recent years has and continues to challenge this hitherto uncontested
hegemony, providing lucrative opportunities for organizations, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in the resulting
new Cold War. For those of a skeptical persuasion in this regard, I refer you to the chilling warning issued by former US President
Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to leaving office in 1960 to make way for his replacement, John F. Kennedy.
In his televised farewell address
to the American people in 1961, Eisenhower said, "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast
proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually
spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."
He continued:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources
and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
Finally, Eisenhower warned the American people how, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist."
Though neoconservatives may no longer be in the driving seat in Washington, neoconservative ideas undoubtedly are. And prime
among them is the idea that not only must Russia be destroyed but also anyone who would dare stand in the way of this narrative,
up to and including President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position
of Sputnik.
"... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
"... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
"... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
"... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
"... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
"... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
"... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
"... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
"... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught
by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at
the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night
called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence
Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch
hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."
"Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia,
Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia
story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.
Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian
speech....
Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican
chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without
sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds
one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether
the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.
Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United
States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.
The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines
the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.
This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC
and oversight committee who can be trusted?
As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is
very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!
I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.
CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.
Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying
their best to emulate them.
I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary
and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...
I am worried.
Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for
it.
This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have
been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on
the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.
Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?
Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.
Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set
up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.
Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking
into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now
I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.
The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up.
Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of
control.
But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.
"... Legitimacy of the US "democratic" governance can survive only as long as: ..."
"... Or at least that their children could gain that better life, if they get some college degree and work hard. ..."
"... Actually "after 9/11" national security state is already a huge step forward in this direction, so we are almost arrived at the point when the USA democratic "façade" became Potemkin village for tourists. ..."
"... That's essentially the difference between "surface state" and the "deep state" that is now actively discussed in the USA due to attempt of color revolution against Trump with intelligence agencies and FBI coming out as political players. ..."
"... And as soon as any intelligence agency becomes a political player this means effective end of any, even traditional the USA form of "façade-based", two party oligarchical rule called "democracy." ..."
Legitimacy of the US "democratic" governance can survive only as long as:
People of America had an expectation that if they work hard they can gain a better
life. This is not true now for the majority (say, lower 80%) of population.
Or at least that their children could gain that better life, if they get some college
degree and work hard. This is also not true now for majority of graduates. Only those,
who graduates at the top of the class, or from Ivy League universities can expect to get decent
positions. Most graduation are happy to land at helpdesk, doing job that does not require any
college education, because it is better then being a waiter.
IMHO, if neither (1) not (2) are applicable the legitimacy of the democratic government evaporates.
And that creates favorable condition for the transition to the dictatorship in some form.
Actually "after 9/11" national security state is already a huge step forward in this direction,
so we are almost arrived at the point when the USA democratic "façade" became Potemkin village
for tourists.
That's essentially the difference between "surface state" and the "deep state" that is
now actively discussed in the USA due to attempt of color revolution against Trump with intelligence
agencies and FBI coming out as political players.
And as soon as any intelligence agency becomes a political player this means effective
end of any, even traditional the USA form of "façade-based", two party oligarchical rule called
"democracy."
That's a dictatorship: a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or by one
or several non-elected political agencies (like the Communist Party, or STASI). And were the power
is exercised through mechanisms that are completely outside the control of electorate.
If somebody here tells that Comey, or in the past Clapper and Michael Morell, were not a political
players in this presidential cycle, the danger is that half of Mexico and Canada readers of this
blog can die laughing.
There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and religious views just like the rest of the
world, except they have access to spy satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to expose. Finally
after watching the evil satan worshipping liberals for all these years use these tool to further the NWO thru clintons and hussein,
the patriot Christian conservative side is finally leaking info they have access to to TRUMP and he is able to fight back a little.
THis is good versus evil, no doubt in my mind. Choose this day whom you will serve. Especially you crossroad demon from hell.
"... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
"... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
"... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
"... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
"... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they
try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.
I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound
a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged
on their Christian values.
They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly
violent way.
Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become
"leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider
the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?
Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period.
That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US
neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God
knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution
of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard
of living and uncertain job prospects.
ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM
I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.
US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made
an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.
The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human
rights and the US' Bill of Rights.
The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their
media.....
"... He has the data that shows the Trump family and many others were under surveillance for a decade or more when he was still there. 600,000,000 pages of data. ..."
I read that info/ letter on another blog. I hope Dennis and Larry succeed, but there is one thing I don't quite understand.
If Montgomery left the NSA a few years ago how can he have hard evidence Trump and his team were surveilled ? ( other than one
of his former workmates telling him). If he has just been told that makes it hard to prove unless the workmate took a copy of
the data and gave it to Montgomery.
He has the data that shows the Trump family and many others were under surveillance for a decade or more when he was still
there. 600,000,000 pages of data.
We're waay beyond Trump being surveilled after the November vote.
"... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
"... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
"... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
"... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
"... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
"... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
"... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all
the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as
well as the White House."
Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told
Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.
"They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting
all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.
"That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he
said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards,
things like that, all of it."
"Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower
who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members
of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the
White House," Binney said.
"And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is
to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should
be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it
actually happens," he said.
"I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.
Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually
makes stopping attacks more difficult.
"This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they
can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.
"Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been
going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was
challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."
Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor
is..."
Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John
T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course
is Stalinism-blame Hitler.
So, is it fascism?
Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of
Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest
people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest
people at the NSA.
Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're
a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was
applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what
it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with
an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."
The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency
devaluation." Read some history books.
Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth,
eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on
outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.
We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning
inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s
reserved for the 1%.
Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM
A video worth revisiting......
Reuters ..........
... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is
rigged..,
telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit
approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.
It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the
NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do
the real work and know the real secrets.
It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the
problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.
TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM
In an honest world, sure.
In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because
NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the
watchers. They can blackmail anyone.
'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'
CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.
"... During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda." ..."
"... After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads. ..."
"... Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. ..."
"... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment
as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans,
writes Robert Parry.
Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling,
national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive
of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the
House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may
have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.
Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence
of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion,"
a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version
of Joe McCarthy.
Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported
– were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans,
whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second
campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security
adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible
that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy
coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are
not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."
As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for
several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based
on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.
Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required
multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what
had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret
Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage
negotiations in 1980.
For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted
to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories
contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations
were framed.
Going Whole-Hog
By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going
whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have
provided some help or advice to Trump.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room
at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department
Photo] Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that
process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically
and possibly remove him from office.
But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly
put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the
fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing
elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language
in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions
of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is
officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).
The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the
violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian
minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine.
The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."
Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force
"regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation
with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.
In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's
not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all
that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.
Questioning War
Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major
parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military
spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations
(although they were far from pacifists).
Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions
used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations
for other wars.
Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was
modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing
regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.
The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around
Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed
nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" – from George McGovern to Jimmy
Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.
But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George
H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President
rebuffed
less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war
victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to
show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas
to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.
During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining
harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade
including
the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential
hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush
to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the
obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.
The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to
Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young
administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama
also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing
war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.
By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into
the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against
Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no
fly zones" – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with
Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."
Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing
for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged
"softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump
or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as
prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."
Being Joe McCarthy
National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between
their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association
hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from
Trump's election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.
But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound
to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative
foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama
wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.
Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's
new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't
vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were
in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those
investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why
the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.
While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the
Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:
Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly
anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file
voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly
mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that
the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is
rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?
Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather
pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community
– with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.
Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious
Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.
At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering
parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
"... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
"... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the
privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and
other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support
for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria
to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen.
Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp"
of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who
described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein:A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous
administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley.
She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's
pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported
in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA,
retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because
it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot
of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin
and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because,
at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical
for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president.
There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military
industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately
the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous
narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this.
If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's
nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology,
these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the
United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and
the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally
normal in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers.
And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put
them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's
not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump,
and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And,
Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta
Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he
thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch
was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It
was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But
since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's
the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media.
And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again,
we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to
have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be
seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading
this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And
I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media
to plant false info.
Trump has described his son-in-law as a "great guy". The president-elect has also reportedly taken
the unprecedented step of requesting security clearance for Kushner to attend top-secret presidential
briefings, the first one of which was on Tuesday. It's unclear if the request will be approved. It
marks an astonishing departure and invites the accusation of nepotism.
Kushner's options for a White House job are limited given his family ties to the president, Richard
Painter, who served as President George W Bush's White House ethics lawyer, told the Associated Press.
Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967 that prohibits the president from appointing a family
member – including a son-in-law – to work in the office or agency they oversee. The measure was passed
after President John F Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as attorney general.
But the law does not appear to prevent Kushner from serving as an unpaid adviser, and few doubt
that Kushner will play a decisive role in shaping the Trump presidency, acting as policy adviser
and gate-keeper. As
Trump and Barack Obama met privately at the White House last week, Kushner strolled the mansion's
South Lawn, deep in conversation with Obama's chief of staff. As Kushner walked through the bustling
West Wing during Trump's visit last week, he was heard asking Obama aides: "How many of these people
stay?", apparently blissfully unaware that the entire West Wing staff will leave at the end of Obama's
term.
His contacts already include Henry Kissinger and Rupert Murdoch; he has received foreign ambassadors.
Like Trump, Kushner has never had a formal role in government, but he now appears set to be more
important than many who do.
we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer
are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why
we need to ask for your help. The Guardian's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of
time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because
it might well be your perspective, too.
Fund our journalism and together we can keep the world informed.
Expect some variation of this story below to come from the upcomine revelations. Trump and Nunes want to not only demonstrate
that Obama was scum, but put a major wedge between the DNC and Jews and Israel:
Firstly, there would have to be sufficient information showing Obama initiated the spying. Unless Obama has political knives
out after him, these facts won't come out until 2030.
Secondly, the media, and other powers-that-be would muddy the water. We'll never know *who* and *why* of the story.
Thirdly, if the NSA comes out with genuine evidence, then we may be able to assume there IS a conflict between the FBI, the
CIA vs the NSA. That, in itself, would be very relevant news.
Growing conflicts in any large government are not conducive to a smooth-operating empire.
Or maybe you are right and the NSA are the good guys. Maybe Snowden did what he did because the NSA itself is not happy about
what they are told to do. Snowden did not go rogue but is following orders from within NSA.
It could also be that the NSA dropped vault 7 onto WikiLeaks as well as the various Hillary leaks during the campaign.
And NYPD says Hillary knew that Wiener was sexing underage girl & did not report it to authorities. The NYPD was prevented
from pursuing charges against her.
Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported. ..."
"... The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes. ..."
"... The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too. ..."
"... It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.' ..."
"... It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .) ..."
"... Revealing this is treason. ..."
"... People will die. ..."
"... I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody. ..."
There's also
this showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was targeting
Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he declared his candidacy.
The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election,
it has been reported.
Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which operated
in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors below Mr Trump's penthouse.
Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but something. Still waiting for any evidence to appear that
Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel better already. So they got the felons and they are all arrested?
What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and Steve
Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?
That said, it was what happening potentially to all citizens, not just Donald Trump. I dislike this intensely, but why should
Trump get special dispensation over other citizens? Would like to know the reason for that.
Like Watergate, it's really about the denial or the lying. "When did you know about the, er, collecting?" For how many
days have we ridiculed Trump for his alternative universe imagination?
> He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally collected".
Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a right? Neither party establishment cares about that
quaint concept, civil liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the Telco's retroactive immunity for
Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should have.
Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively
because the IC hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his communications.
I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced
how corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance
would be applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the
head of the surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking Wikileaks to release all of Clintons emails, he should just do it himself.
The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I
mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi
money terrorist influence goes.
Not just incidental, in Congressional hearings, Comey flat out says that Trump and his team were investigated for Russian connections,
and that none were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or not. Something completely in the air.
But team Dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.
It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a
tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .)
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications
intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington
Post.
Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden
provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody
else.
And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
(including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and Justin Amash)? Revealing this is treason. People will die.
And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's execution.
Sorry allan – I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in ZeroHedge and posted a comment – your article is better and it
makes for more coherent comment threads to keep them together – I should have looked before I leaped (posted).
Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about
U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence
value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."
==============================================
So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th dimensional.
fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to
the whole thing – all five hours and 18 minutes' worth – because I suspected that the corporate media would omit important details
or spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.
The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy,
and Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling
free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified information, and the like.
Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks, and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern
– at least as they expressed publicly on Monday – was specifically related to whether all those current and former officials,
senior officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior
positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in
surveillance of foreign actors.
Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian
ties or simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all their arguments, I believe they are on more solid
ground than all the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.
I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he made
some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump advisers
and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information about
U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL
information collected under FISA is classified.
And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted
more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly managed to find 50 different ways to say it).
My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.
In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported
was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his
agency, blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple
other Republicans were getting at.
It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting
the American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.
Thanks for watching the whole thing – the nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
"My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability."
First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big, bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying
to wrest control of the civilian government – the idea that the CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all Americans
is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following, the mandatory
use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been bought off or has
lost all their critical thinking faculties.
But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do have
a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration is trying
to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments – the sheer HYSTERIA,
the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad
There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are just
grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there is REAL treason
something should have come out by now.
I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter
in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing
to take the time to dig for them or, in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were covering it as a member of the press
– especially when I don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!
I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't think
there's anything inherently wrong with publishing leaked material, even certain kinds of classified information. It depends.
There's the kind of "classified" information that is restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing something they have
a right to know, and there's information that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first kind should be leaked early
and often. The second kind, close to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an instance when it would be OK).
Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held liable for publishing classified information given to them by a third
party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be harmed? Would
sitting on the information cause more harm than publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional rights?
These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn, who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game. However, if
I had been reporting that story, I think I would have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk of getting scooped
– unless, of course, I was in cahoots with the leakers and out to get him and his boss.
At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant in a political
cause. Although newspapers throughout history have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth, there's a big difference
between having an editorial slant and being an active participant in the story. Evidently, BezPo has decided that the latter is
not only acceptable, but advantageous.
Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it's
disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same time, the D's
propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the press.
> I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a
reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am
willing to take the time to dig for them
I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous
operations run against . well, everybody.
It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of
affairs. (I don't expect any kind of language from Trump but sloppy.) All are, therefore one is. It does bug me that
the whole discussion gets dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is appropriate for which form of Fourth
Amendment-destruction (emptywheel does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to figure them out, rather
like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that people follow
the rules, and especially that high-level people (like, say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated rules.
That assumes facts not in evidence.
Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.
We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those
are non-denial denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?
As we detailed earlier, it appears Trump may have been right, again.
Two days after FBI director Comey shot down Trump's allegation that Trump was being wiretapped by president Obama before the election,
it appears that president Trump may have been on to something because moments ago, the House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes,
told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition
team, possibly including Trump himself, and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.
As
AP adds , Nunes said that President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part
of an "incidental collection."
Nunes told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not
appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence
collections were done legally , although in light of the dramatic change in the plotline it may be prudent to reserve judgment on
how "incidental" it was.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved
in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
"Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were
widely disseminated in intelligence community reports."
The information was "legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it," Nunes said, though he provided little detail
on the source.
BREAKING!!! Rep Devin Nunes (Intel Cmte Chmn): There was "Incidental collection" of
@realDonaldTrump thru IC surveillance <- BOMBSHELL
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated
that Trump's communications may have been swept up.
The House Intel Chair said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He
said that he believes the information was legally collected. Nunes said that the intelligence has nothing to do with Russia and that
the collection occurred after the presidential election.
Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and will inform the White House later today. Nunes' statement
comes after he and other congressional leaders pushed back on Trump's claims that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in
Trump Tower ahead of the election.
Nunes said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the information incidentally collected originated in Trump Tower.
The revelation comes in the wake of the committee's explosive hearing on Monday, at which FBI Director James Comey confirmed that
the bureau has been investigating Russia's election hacking since July, which includes probing possible coordination between members
of Trump's presidential campaign and Moscow.
The meeting represented the panel's first open hearing on its investigation into Russia's election meddling and also featured
testimony from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring
mostly occurred in November, December and January. He added that he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify
those source
Politico adds that Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned,
which he said came from "sources."
Nunes says he is "bothered" by this. Won't say whether or not intel community spied on Trump et. al. But says he is "concerned."
Trump wouldn't of tweeted what he did unless he knew something. He doesn't make blind bets, he only moves on things he knows
he can win. Not to mention he has shown that he can bait, watch the other side respond and deny and then present his case to show
them as the liars they are.
How all these people still let trump bait them like this is hilarious. How many times has he said something that seemed baseless
and everyone was sure would sink him, and then he is vindicated? And they still fucking fall for it.
And yes, incidental surveillance is a funny term. As in you swept all his up the same way they listen to all of us all the
time? Maybe this will piss trump off enough to end this shit. I doubt it though.
The NSA 'wiretaps' EVERYONE. All of what you say on your phone, on-line, and in any other form of electronic communications
is Hoovered up and dumped in their mass storage facilities in Utah and elsewhere. The system is set up to get it all AUTOMATICALLY.
In fact, they would have had to go to great efforts to NOT record what Trump and his associates said electronically. Or searched
for. Or visited on the web. Or even visited in person if he/she carried a cell phone with when going about.
Because it is all recorded for ALL OF US! Standard, all the time, no warrant required.
Of course, if there were FISA warrants issued, then the opposition did more than that, because no warrant is required for any
of the above. So they must have also done some non-standard dirty. Like placing recording malware on the relevant cell phones
to record conversations, take pictures, upload stored files, and even take video. Or sift through his financial records.
OK, so why should you care? I don't mean about Trump, although you should care there as well, but about your privacy. You may
not be getting the full Monte he did, by everything you do in the first paragraph now rests with the NSA.
For an answer, consider this conversation between one of the uber-wealthy and a Federal Prosecutor:
*****
"With enough data, my lawyers can always find a crime. They'll prosecute. Bury anyone under legal motions, make his life miserable.
Maybe even send him up for some felony."
"Even if he didn't do anything?"
"Of course he did something. We got 100,000 laws on the books, twice that in regs. Somewhere, sometime, by accident or intentionally,
he broke one. We get a moving x-ray of his life, all we have to do is find it."
*****
It's called the power of selective prosecution. With enough data, what used to be just an annoyance becomes an unstoppable
control technique. Someday, when the deep state wants you cooperation, they will drill down through their Utah stash for your
name. Then they will call you in for a little chat.
Not willing to spy on your best friend or wife? You may change you mind after their little chat.
So how to avoid this trap? How do you avoid becoming a data serf?
Learn to hide your data so it can't be hovered in the first place. I suggest you start with
www.privacytools.io and work your way up from there.
And do it now. Because protecting your privacy is like quitting smoking. It doesn't matter how long you have been engaged in
unclean behavior, it's never too late to start living right.
The quote above, by the way, was from Thieves Emporium by Max Hernandez. It's a primer on the ways TPTB control us in the new
world of fiat money and ubiquitous surveillance and what we can do to prevent it. I strongly recommend you at least investigate
getting a copy.
There is a simple method for Trump to "drain the swamp". Fucked if I know why he hasn't, given how much butt-hurt they are
dishing out to him.
An Executive Order giving immunity and witness protection (and even a fucking Presidential Medal of Freedom, if you ask me)
to all whistleblowers who reveal unconstitutional malfeasance within both overt and covert .gov departments. Because these are
the true patriots, and all that is stopping them shining a fucking huge spotlight on this bucket of scumfuck is persecution from
the swamp dwellers who control all the levers of power.
Maybe with a (secure) hotline/email direct to the White House, just to bypass Comey and all the other cunts installed by Obama.
Or probably better, directly to a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor who is prepared to get down and seriously
dirty with the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC. A Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as relying on the
FBI et al is concerned, Trump was fucked before he started.
A typewriter can get it done. Hear they're Hot sellers in Germany again.
What people don't understand is, that the Russian PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the Deep State & Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton Globalist was the game plan all long.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If the Deep State could of pulled off the False Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing
our Elections the Deep State could & will hack into Russia's National Elections next March. Call it pay back.
The Deep State's destabilization campaign in Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize
Russia during their upcoming g elections.
Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured those destabilization cells are in
place to ready to be activated come Russia's next election cycle.
The future meeting between the Two Super Powers will be Epic. The Diplomacy which will Prevail out of those meetings will be
a fresh breath of air to the World.
And, final Death Blows to the Pure Evil Criminal Deep State Elite Compartmentalized Hierarchy.
3) All accounts disassociated with you personally - fake names, no phone numbers, do not link to any personal accounts, make
no comments, do not message your contacts.
4) never use your own wifi.
5) never use your own bank account or credit cards, use crypto currency to pay for VPN, etc.
This setup, as I understand it, would keep you completely anon with the exception of cameras at the store you purchase laptop
at or cameras at the cafe you are using wifi. You can now leak without it being linked to you.
Not to say that this setup is immune from CIA In fact the idea is that you know that the CIA is looking, its just important
that they do not know WHO they are looking at (identity).
my Russian compatriot Vlad told me when he was a kid, every typewriter in USSR was cataloged with samples of its output. By
microscopic analysis, they could tell which typewriter was responsible for any typed document.
every computer printer made also has the same kind of ID backdoor - it will print a specific identifier (like a MAC address)
somewhere on the page - except for the old dot matrix and early inkjet. Defeat that by running it thru a low res copier a few
round trips.
East German Stasi, same deal. All typewriters registered and tracked. Such amazing depth of the deep state crap. Coming soon
to a ruined Republic near you...unless......we stop it.
"An Executive Order giving immunity and witness protection (and even a fucking Presidential Medal of Freedom, if you ask me)
to all whistleblowers who reveal unconstitutional malfeasance within both overt and covert .gov departments. Because these are
the true patriots, and all that is stopping them shining a fucking huge spotlight on this bucket of scumfuck is persecution from
the swamp dwellers who control all the levers of power.
Maybe with a (secure) hotline/email direct to the White House, just to bypass Comey and all the other cunts installed by Obama.
Or probably better, directly to a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor who is prepared to get down and seriously
dirty with the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC. A Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as relying on the
FBI et al is concerned, Trump was fucked before he started."
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with
meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
______________________
Members[edit]
European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
Italy
Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
Norway
Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
Serbia
Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
Others
Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
Paraguay:
United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"
They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!
Funding[edit]
In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five
governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization
could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report
requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian
World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]
Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!
"... Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be
unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the
unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs
on them every time they end up being incidentally collected. ..."
"... You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your
communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various
targets over the last several years. ..."
"... This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities
of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination
to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary
of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear
to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag. ..."
"... Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday
that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. ..."
"... The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal
on N.Korea etc? ..."
"... But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches
of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. ..."
"... It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials..
..."
The rank and file of the IC are not involved in this. So let's not tar everyone with the same brush, but Obama revised executive
order 12333 so that communication intercepts incidentally collected dont have to be masked and may be shared freely in the IC.
Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can
be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all
of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You
can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected.
You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas?
Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced
off various targets over the last several years.
What might your "synthetic" surveillance report look like?
There's way more going on here then first alleged. From Bloomberg, not my choice for news, but There is another component to
this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted.
It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S.
officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls
between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.
Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason.
Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy
reputations from the cloak of anonymity.
This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities
of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's
nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests
when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations
with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday
that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated
effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and
foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security
clearances, it looks like a pattern."
@?realDonaldTrump?
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening
as I deal on N.Korea etc?
President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous
problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate
public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.............
But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political
branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.
It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials..
..... But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage - or with a disinformation campaign waged
by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.....
Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse . What's comes next a call for his Impeachment from
FOX News 'Friends and Family'?
CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'"
By Eugene Scott, CNN...Wed...March 22, 2017...Updated 10:16 AM ET,
"(CNN)President Donald Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" puts him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President,"
The Wall Street Journal editorial board says.
"Two months into his presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news,
but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President," reads the editorial, which
appeared online Tuesday night."...
Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US
president in history. It's not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over
by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street mafia.
Recently, Trump announced another big alliance with the vulture billionaire, Paul Singer, who,
initially, was supposedly against him. It looks like the Trump big show continues.
The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be
eliminated by the syndicate of the united billionaires under Trump administration.
As Greg Palast told to Thom Hartmann:
Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet
an honest businessman. This is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to
China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate, excoriated the billionaires who
sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico.
Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as
Dodd–Frank. He is called 'the vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily
in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs, he has never made a product
in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury.
He is against what Obama created, which is a system under Dodd–Frank, called 'living wheels',
where if a bank starts going bankrupt, they don't call the US treasury for bail-out. These banks
go out of business and they are broken up so we don't have to pay for the bail-out. Singer wants
to restore the system of bailouts because that's where he makes his money.
The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general
election he was out of money and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert,
who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically investment banking sharks, that's
all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions, he
hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention.
Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular
income taxes. They have a special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'. They were two
candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe
it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall Street sharks,
they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win,
they get a tax-break called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word
about that loophole? It passed away.
His political activities include funding the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and he has
written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Singer is active in Republican
Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top
source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at
EMC, which has been called a vulture fund. Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in
the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid
debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in
or near default-such as Argentina, ]- through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through
Kensington International Inc. Singer's business model of purchasing distressed debt from companies
and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has led to criticism, while Singer
and EMC defend their model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules."
In 1996, Elliott bought defaulted Peruvian debt for $11.4 million. Elliott won a $58 million judgement
when the ruling was overturned in 2000, and Peru had to repay the sum in full under the pari passu
rule. When former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was attempting to flee the country due to facing
legal proceedings over human rights abuses and corruption, Singer ordered the confiscation of his
jet and offered to let him leave the country in exchange for the $58 million payment from the treasury,
an offer which Fujimori accepted. A subsequent 2002 investigation by the Government of Peru into
the incident and subsequent congressional report, uncovered instances of corruption since Elliott
was not legally authorized to purchase the Peruvian debt from Swiss Bank Corporation without the
prior approval of the Peruvian government, and thus the purchase had occurred in breach of contract.
At the same time, Elliott's representative, Jaime Pinto, had been formerly employed by the Peruvian
Ministry of Economy and Finance and had contact with senior officials. According to the Wall Street
Journal, the Peruvian government paid Elliott $56 million to settle the case.
After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002, the Elliott-owned company NML Capital Limited refused
to accept the Argentine offer to pay less than 30 cents per dollar of debt. With a face value of
$630 million, the bonds were reportedly bought by NML for $48 million, with Elliott assessing the
bonds as worth $2.3 billion with accrued interest. Elliott sued Argentina for the debt's value, and
the lower UK courts found that Argentina had state immunity. Elliott successfully appealed the case
to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Elliott had the right to attempt to seize Argentine property
in the United Kingdom. Alternatively, before 2011, US courts ruled against allowing creditors to
seize Argentine state assets in the United States. On October 2, 2012 Singer arranged for a Ghanaian
Court order to detain the Argentine naval training vessel ARA Libertad in a Ghanaian port, with the
vessel to be used as collateral in an effort to force Argentina to pay the debt. Refusing to pay,
Argentina shortly thereafter regained control of the ship after its seizure was deemed illegal by
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Alleging the incident lost Tema Harbour $7.6 million
in lost revenue and unpaid docking fees, Ghana in 2012 was reportedly considering legal action against
NML for the amount.
His firm... is so influential that fear of its tactics helped shape the current 2012 Greek debt
restructuring." Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up
sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer
began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina,
Peru-through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc.
In 2004, then first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund Anne Osborn Krueger
denounced the strategy, alleging that it has "undermined the entire structure of sovereign finance."
we wrote that " Trump's rhetoric is concentrated around a racist delirium.
He avoids to take direct position on social matters, issues about inequality, etc. Of course he does,
he is a billionaire! Trump will follow the pro-establishment agenda of protecting Wall Street and
big businesses. And here is the fundamental difference with Bernie Sanders. Bernie says no more war
and he means it. He says more taxes for the super-rich and he means it. Free healthcare and education
for all the Americans, and he means it. In case that Bernie manage to beat Hillary, the establishment
will definitely turn to Trump who will be supported by all means until the US presidency. "
Yet, we would never expect that Trump would verify us, that fast.
And the plot thickens. Whoever said may you live in interesting times......had no idea. Can you feel the desperation from the
filthy corrupt democrats? The demonic spirits that reside in them are going berserk. The light is starting to shine on them and
their evil deeds are more transparent than ever. It's only gonna get better
Fox better rehire Napolitano before it is too late. But it is too late for the Wall Street Journal comparing Trump to 'a drunk'
clinging to 'an empty gin bottle' in scathing editorial.
Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse . What's comes next a call for his Impeachment from
FOX News 'Friends and Family'?
CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'"
By Eugene Scott, CNN...Wed...March 22, 2017...Updated 10:16 AM ET,
"(CNN)President Donald Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" puts him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President,"
The Wall Street Journal editorial board says.
"Two months into his presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news,
but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President," reads the editorial, which
appeared online Tuesday night."...
It's all about fostering division. Give the snowflakes hope
and anger. Give the Trumpbots something to rail against.
Hell, in reading this article, I almost forgot that Goldman
Sachs runs the Trump administration and Feinstein.
DiFi, DiFi...wasn't she the one who freaked out when she
found out Obama's NSA was spying on her...or was
it..."government officials who wished to remain anonymous"
working for the CIA?
They are all publicly against the Deep State spying on
themselves except when it comes to doing anything about
it (Trump included).
Simple question: Trump says he
was wiretapped illegally by intelligence agencies. Why
is he doubling down and saying those same agencies need
more $$ and power?
Where is Obama anyway? Laying low? We can always
hope he just disappears. Did Eric Braverman ever
show up? I know he got a job with Google but has
anyone seen him?
Does anyone think Feinstein would pass a deep look into her
buisiness dealings with her husband Richard Blum? I fucking
doubt it very, very seriously. If the deep state turned the
eye of sauron on her, she would be wearing county jumpers
rather quickly.
I'm thinking the breaking of this news of Obama wrongdoing has got to be
why in the span of two weeks he went from being 1) newly HQ'd/bunkered in
DC and 'ready to roll' against Trump, to 2) on the other side of the
planet for a long stay in French Polynesia, apparently w/o his 'wife'.
"... 'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that triggered a feud with America's closest ally' ..."
"How the U.K. spying claim traveled from an ex-CIA blogger to Trump's White House"
'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that
triggered a feud with America's closest ally'
By Matthew Nussbaum...03/18/17...02:38 PM EDT
"...Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and blogger, acknowledges he was one of the sources for Fox News commentator Andrew
Napolitano's claim - later repeated by the White House..."
"... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
"... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
"... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
"... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace,
and prospertiy, imo, of course
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM
"In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had
used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported
President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:
Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources
have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he
didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British
intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving
candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on
this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.
This is an explosive accusation.
What's GCHQ?
GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages
in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of
the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive
collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship.
In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both
capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."
Close collaboration can lead to temptation
Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence
agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern
Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's
citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission.
She furthermore suggests that:
The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans
without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national
intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the
privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll
spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially
unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.
Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI
or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.
But don't jump to conclusions
Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent
the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is
wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate.
The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies
have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere
concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the
Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal
that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement.
The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no
appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship
for decades.
Nor is there any actual proof
Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As
he describes it on his own website:
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known
as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers,
so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions
of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services,
Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong
claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious
in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's
not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship.
It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge
of what happened.
Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders
and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because
it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America
in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised
to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata
on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications,
or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.
This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation
President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's
statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous
about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will
be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize
continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration
agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II.
The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations
about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason
to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."
*Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.
== quote ==
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality.
It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's
links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the
mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his
connections to Russia.
Tom Wood has compiled a 30 year list of connections between Trump and Russia. The first 9 pages cover 1987 to 2015, then it moves
to 2016. Every item is sourced, with a hyperlink to the original published news story. Sources include major newspapers, television
stations, magazines, and major Websites. Pages 32 to 118 cover the period of Sept. 16, 2016 to March 14, 2017.
You need to learn what "color revolution" is and what 198 specific methods (within the broad classes of nonviolent protest
and persuasion, non-cooperation (social, economic and political) and nonviolent intervention ) are used to depose the legitimate
government by intelligence agencies.
Please read a couple of Jene Sharp book for a start
Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing narratives
to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.
One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies
plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This
was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting
that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate" allegations have
been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss
in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about
the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.
It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal
and constitutional election.
The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians
did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and
elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity
undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary
record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration
with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained.
Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.
This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:
The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI developed an interest in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations
of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest
in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata
(presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if
a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow
determined that the server did not have "any nefarious purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating
spam.
The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also reporting that, "For
much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents
scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved
in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations,"
which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.
In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants
relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's
American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved,
this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.
Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned
initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make
the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked on in June and by
one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented
to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection
to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and
his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid wrote to Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign"
be investigated. In September, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees
respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump
personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the
server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already
the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed
his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.
Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already
know that and he presumably approves of it.
Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that
there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower "to my knowledge" because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have
been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts
other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used.
Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there
was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey
also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality.
It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's
links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign
policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections
to Russia.
President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for
Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.
After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the 35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence
officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British
report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would
be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made public.
Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency
to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy
protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York
Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian
ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation
of what took place.
Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department
were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency
working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."
Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security
advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence
officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn
was eventually forced to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth,
some at the CIA, FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks.
The State Department is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.
One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited "four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had
"repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had
in any way been influenced by the Russians.
The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of
lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak
and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from
any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.
Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation
regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It
was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European
intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency
interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with
Trump representatives.
The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment
of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were
pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide
readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them
or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department
reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to
Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.
The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect
and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some
political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.
The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of
the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags
#notmypresident have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations
that want Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter, frequently comes up . Barack
Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett
to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump
while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation,
insofar as can be determined, is still active.
Britain Livid on Spying Claim, but Trump Isn't Apologizing. White House aides scrambled to deal with an unusual rupture after
suggesting that former President Barack Obama used a British spy agency to wiretap Donald J. Trump during the campaign.
At a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Trump made clear that he felt the White House had nothing to
retract.
WASHINGTON - President Trump provoked a rare public dispute with America's closest ally on Friday after his White House
aired an explosive and unsubstantiated claim that Britain's spy agency had secretly eavesdropped on him at the behest of President
Barack Obama during last year's campaign.
Livid British officials adamantly denied the allegation and secured promises from senior White House officials never to
repeat it. But a defiant Mr. Trump refused to back down, making clear that the White House had nothing to retract or apologize
for because his spokesman had simply repeated an assertion made by a Fox News commentator. Fox itself later disavowed the report.
...
this equally applied to those with the virulent fixation on Russia completely out of control.
== end of quote ==
Neoliberal DemoRats might pay dearly for this "poisoning of the well" trick -- McCarthyism witch hunt.
We need to remember that corruption of politician is sine qua non of neoliberalism. "Greed is good" completely replaced 10
Commandments.
But the first rule of living in a glass house that modern Internet provides (in cooperation with intelligence agencies, Google,
Microsoft and Facebook) is not to throw stones.
Russia is not Serra Leon with rockets. I am afraid that Russia might have a lot of info about corruption of major Democratic
politicians as most of them took bribes from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs (whom they essentially created) and some (old Clinton
"associates" like Summers) closely participated in "great economic rape of Russia" of 1991-2000. All neatly recorded and waiting
their hour for release.
At some point Putin's nerves might break and he can order to release this information. Then what ?
"... Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state. ..."
"... For those unsure what the exchange was about, we suggest you read the Telegraph's " Barack Obama 'approved tapping Angela Merkel's phone 3 years ago'... President Barack Obama was told about monitoring of German Chancellor in 2010 and allowed it to continue, says German newspaper ." ..."
"... And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's mention of the wiretapping story. ..."
"... Finally, as Axios adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything. " ..."
Following today's latest developments over Trump's allegations that the UK's GCHQ may or may not have helped Obama to wiretap the
Trump Tower, an allegation which the infuriated British Spy Agency called "utterly ridiculous" and
prompted it to demand an apology from the White House, a German reporter asked Trump for his current opinion on whether Obama
had indeed wiretapped Trump. The president's response: he gestured to Angela Merkel and said " on wiretapping by this past administration,
at least we have something in common."
Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack
Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state.
And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today
that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported
that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's
mention of the wiretapping story.
WH now sez there was no apology to Brits from @PressSec /McMaster;
they fielded complaints & defended Spicer's mention of wiretapping story
Finally, as
Axios
adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously
sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything.
"
"... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
"... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
"... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
"... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace,
and prospertiy, imo, of course
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM
"In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had
used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported
President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:
Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources
have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he
didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British
intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving
candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on
this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.
This is an explosive accusation.
What's GCHQ?
GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages
in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of
the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive
collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship.
In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both
capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."
Close collaboration can lead to temptation
Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence
agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern
Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's
citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission.
She furthermore suggests that:
The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans
without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national
intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the
privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll
spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially
unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.
Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI
or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.
But don't jump to conclusions
Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent
the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is
wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate.
The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies
have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere
concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the
Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal
that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement.
The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no
appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship
for decades.
Nor is there any actual proof
Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As
he describes it on his own website:
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known
as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers,
so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions
of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services,
Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong
claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious
in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's
not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship.
It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge
of what happened.
Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders
and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because
it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America
in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised
to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata
on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications,
or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.
This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation
President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's
statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous
about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will
be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize
continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration
agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II.
The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations
about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason
to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."
*Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.
== quote ==
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality.
It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's
links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the
mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his
connections to Russia.
Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw
Mike Pence as "the Deep
State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence
Officials plan...
Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence
defeatable.
As
The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform
drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...
By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence
pays
As we concluded previously,
if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration
in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.
No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains
that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are
they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia
– a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.
Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian
agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more
ground troops to Syria alongside
Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian
regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this
time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more
than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
"color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"
Not so fast...
Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...
Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN
THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.
Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job...
Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in
the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.
I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that
this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...
If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn
warned against.
"Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more
than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail
President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck
Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A
scattered few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many
as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........
I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA
my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA
They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump
probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that
the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not
even in the same branch or division.
They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who
pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA
A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors,
like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their
own elected administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
"... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
"... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
"... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
"... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
"... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
"... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
"... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
"... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
"... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
"... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
"... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
"... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
"... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
"... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
"... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
"... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
"... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
"... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
"... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
"... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
"... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
"... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing
narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.
One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement
agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign.
This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even
suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate"
allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain
the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in,
and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.
It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal
and constitutional election.
The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians
did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and
elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity
undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary
record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration
with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained.
Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.
This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:
The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI
developed an interest
in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant
suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow
and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent
and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted
upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have
"any nefarious
purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.
The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also
reporting that,
"For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents
scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved
in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations,"
which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.
In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI
sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect
information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also
permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part
of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.
Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned
initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee
began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked
on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained
serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of
some bizarre sexual escapades.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and
his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid wrote to Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September,
Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused
the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted
its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly
related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal
investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the
election and this is possibly what Trump was
referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.
Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already
know that and he presumably approves of it.
Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that
there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower
"to my knowledge"
because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously
lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none
of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey
provided a view contrary to that of Clapper,
saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court."
FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very
specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It
culminated in
ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were
apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded
by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters
stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse
Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.
President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for
Hillary. President Obama
called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.
After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the
35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being
long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele
dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made
public.
Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration,
Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with
the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative
information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information
relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep
it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.
Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported
that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian
ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."
Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security
advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence
officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn
was eventually forced
to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA,
FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department
is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.
One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited
"four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence
officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.
The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused
of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak
and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any
investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.
Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its
revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia
and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed
the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S.
intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been
in contact with Trump representatives.
The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full
assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction
were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide
readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them
or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly
sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin,
a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.
The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts
to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably
some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.
The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of
the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident
have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want
Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter,
frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed
by former
consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged
in developing
a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection
and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.
If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning
Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower
server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on
national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal
intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected
on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were
changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be
disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not
be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.
The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have
been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the
new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies
while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options
when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course,
unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.
It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with
almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated
to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian
source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the
outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable
evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have
been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-ŕ-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they
have been accused of lying.
So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe
to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple
the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.
And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous
dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might
just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies
have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a
particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has
placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
"... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
"... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
"... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
"... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
"... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
George Neumayr
Posted on 3/6/2017 4:42:04 PM by RoosterRedux
It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's
gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about
the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under
investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.
Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where
did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court
warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me
by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He
would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had
heard from other sources.
Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation,
according to the BBC story:
The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source"
as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.
Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!
To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.
Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA
who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.
I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they
can go back for years and pull out the data.
Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.
We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.
Vault 7 revelations now shed some light on the possibilities of a muti-step operations to get the court order. The absurdity of
the situation is evident: acting POTUS complains about wiretapping by his predecessor who supposedly used one of intelligence agencies
(supposedly CIA) for this operation. Being now a Commander in Chief.
Ray McGovern who probably knows what he is talking about suggested that Obama might be scared of CIA Director Brennan (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGayl9uNW4A actually this
is a very interesting interview)
The following scheme looks plausible: Scapegoat Russians by hacking into DNC servers; create media hysteria about Russians; implicate
Trump in connections to Russians; get court order for wiretapping on this ground
Notable quotes:
"... Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. ..."
"... I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch ..."
"... Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision. ..."
"... in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ..."
Baker-Mazzetti's opener says it all: " Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee
report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White
House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that
day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed
visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even
as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. " Nothing could be plainer. As one who remembers well the guilt-by-association
days of McCarthyism, I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate
Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam
under his watch , as in its role in drone assassination at facilities in Pakistan, Brennan himself installed as Director
after Valiant Service as national security adviser, all despite questions of favoring waterboarding raised in confirmation hearings.
From a pool of gung-ho national-security experts on which to draw, the others still making up his First Team of advisers (include
generals, admirals, members of think tanks with partly disguised neocon credentials), Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence
charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision.
Obama is not Brennan's puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction
between the White House and Langley "after the release of the scorching report," Brennan having "irritated advisers by battling
Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year." They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release,
suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that
this is NYT, an astonishing statement: "But in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a
bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy
and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance
security and liberty ."
What they don't say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations
with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency's struggle to
balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty,
a no-contest battle.
"... The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election. ..."
"... A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions. ..."
"... The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times EDT):
7:10 p.m.
The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department
if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during
the election.
The committee set Monday as the deadline for getting the information, but the Justice Department
says it needs more time.
The committee now says it wants the information in hand before March 20 when it holds its first
public hearing on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee
might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions.
___
6:30 p.m.
The Justice Department is requesting more time to respond to a congressional inquiry into President
Donald Trump's unproven assertion that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.
The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence
Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election.
But spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says in a statement Monday that the department has asked for
more time to "review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine
what if any responsive documents may exist."
"... In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information, under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism, testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence. ..."
"... I have also met on several occasions with the staff of Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, since judges have been illegally surveilled, and asked them to inquire of FBI Director Comey and his General Counsel James Baker why their Montgomery investigation has appeared to have been "buried" for the last few years. They have done so, but as yet have not received, to the best of my knowledge, a clear response. ..."
"... Legally speaking, my cases against the intelligence agencies also encompass the illegal surveillance of President Trump and his men, as what apparently occurred shows a pattern of unconstitutional conduct that at trial would raise a strong evidentiary inference that this illegal behavior continues to occur. Our so called government, represented by dishonest Obama-loyal attorneys in the corrupted Federal Programs Branch of the Justice Department, continues to maintain that they cannot for national security reasons confirm or deny the mass surveillance against me or anyone else. ..."
The newest revelations that the Obama administration wiretapped, that is "bugged" President Trump
and all of his men, in the lead up to and after the November 8, 2016, elections are not surprising.
In this regard, for over 2 years the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
have been secretly investigating the "harvesting" of highly confidential information including financial
records of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, over 156 judges, prominent businessmen
like Donald Trump, and public activists like me.
In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward
to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information,
under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for
the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism,
testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William
Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath
and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence.
The newest revelations that the Obama administration wiretapped, that is "bugged" President Trump
and all of his men, in the lead up to and after the November 8, 2016, elections are not surprising.
In this regard, for over 2 years the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
have been secretly investigating the "harvesting" of highly confidential information including financial
records of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, over 156 judges, prominent businessmen
like Donald Trump, and public activists like me.
In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward
to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information,
under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for
the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism,
testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William
Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath
and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence.
I have also met on several occasions with the staff of Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary
Committee, since judges have been illegally surveilled, and asked them to inquire of FBI Director
Comey and his General Counsel James Baker why their Montgomery investigation has appeared to have
been "buried" for the last few years. They have done so, but as yet have not received, to the best
of my knowledge, a clear response.
In addition I have gone back to one of the few intellectually honest judges on the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (nearly all of the rest, save for another great, Judge Royce C.
Lamberth, are politically biased appointees of either Presidents Clinton or Obama), and asked him
to move forward to trial with the cases which I filed in 2013 against Obama and his intelligence
agencies over the mass spying on hundreds of millions of Americans.
Not coincidentally, before Edward Snowden revealed this unconstitutional conduct by the National
Security Agency (NSA), which then was run under the direction of the Director of National Intelligence
(DNI), James Clapper, Clapper lied under oath to Congress, denying that this illegal surveillance
was occurring under his watch. That he was never prosecuted for perjury at a minimum, not to mention
that it is crime to wiretap innocent Americans without "probable cause," is a testament to the reality
that official Washington is afraid of the intelligence agencies, knowing that they can dig up "dirt"
to destroy their political and personal lives. Indeed, this may help explain Chief Justice Roberts'
"inexplicable" last minute flip on the Obamacare case before SCOTUS. What, for instance, did Clapper
and the NSA/CIA have on Roberts that may have "convinced" him to rubber stamp President Barack Obama's
unconstitutional Affordable Care Act?
Judge Leon, in the course of my cases before him (see
freedomwatchusa.org for more info),
has already issued two preliminary injunction rulings ordering that the illegal mass surveillance
cease and desist. He termed this unconstitutional violation of our Fourth Amendment, "almost Orwellian,"
a reference to George Orwell's prophetic book "1984" about "Big Brother." Judge Leon's rulings then
prompted Congress to amend the Patriot Act, and call it the USA Freedom Act, which sought to leave
telephonic metadata in the hands of the telephone providers, like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T, until
a warrant was obtained showing probable cause that a target or subjects communications with terrorists
or a crime was being committed.
It now appears that the Obama intelligence agencies, as I predicted to Judge Leon, have again
ignored and flouted the law, and at the direction of the former President Obama, and/or his men like
Clapper, illegally spied on targets or subjects like Mr. Trump and his associates, including Gen.
Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. This is why I have pushed Judge Leon to move
my cases along to trial, and have offered to bring Montgomery forth to be interviewed by the judge
in camera in the interim, as he has a security clearance to probe Montgomery about classified information
which I cannot and have not accessed.
Legally speaking, my cases against the intelligence agencies also encompass the illegal surveillance
of President Trump and his men, as what apparently occurred shows a pattern of unconstitutional conduct
that at trial would raise a strong evidentiary inference that this illegal behavior continues to
occur. Our so called government, represented by dishonest Obama-loyal attorneys in the corrupted
Federal Programs Branch of the Justice Department, continues to maintain that they cannot for national
security reasons confirm or deny the mass surveillance against me or anyone else.
I have asked Judge Leon to enter a permanent injunction against Obama and his political hacks
at the NSA and CIA, many of whom are still there and are bent on destroying the Trump presidency
and attempting to blackmail prominent Americans, like me, who might challenge the destructive socialist/pro-Muslim
agenda of the Obama-Clinton-Soros left.
... ... ...
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest
advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. To read more
of his reports, Go
Here Now .
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, wants to "verify" that the intelligence community was using its surveillance authority "ethically." Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite ..."
"... The committee's ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff of California, also told reporters Tuesday that he was happy to look into the president's allegations – but warned that if they were proven false, accusing Obama of ordering an illegal wiretap could pose much bigger problems for Trump. ..."
"... "If a sitting U.S. president alleging that his predecessor engaged in the most unscrupulous and unlawful conduct that is also a scandal, if those allegations prove to be false," Schiff said. "And we should be able to determine in fairly short order whether this accusation was true or false." ..."
"... Nunes also questioned the official explanation for why Flynn's calls were recorded. Was it actually because of "incidental collection" – as the intelligence community has argued – "or was it something else?" he asked. ..."
"... Nunes may have a chance to grill intelligence community members about that on March 20, when he plans to hold an open hearing as part of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections. ..."
"... Schiff said Tuesday that he plans "on asking the director of the FBI directly whether there was any wiretap directed at Mr. Trump or his associates" at the hearing. ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, said Tuesday that he had seen no
evidence supporting President Trump's claim that his phones were tapped by the previous administration.
But unlike many other members of Congress, Nunes did not demand that the administration explain
the basis of Trump's accusation, saying that "we were going to look into it anyway."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, wants to "verify" that
the intelligence community was using its surveillance authority "ethically." Associated Press/J.
Scott Applewhite
"The bigger question that needs to be answered is whether or not Mr. Trump or any of his associates
were in fact targeted by any of the intelligence agencies or law enforcement authorities," Nunes
told reporters Tuesday. Over the weekend, he announced that his committee would look into Trump's
accusation delivered via Twitter that "Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the
victory."
"At this point we don't have any evidence of that," Nunes said. "But we also don't have any evidence
of many people who have been named in multiple news stories that supposedly are under some type of
investigation."
The committee's ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff of California, also told reporters Tuesday that
he was happy to look into the president's allegations – but warned that if they were proven false,
accusing Obama of ordering an illegal wiretap could pose much bigger problems for Trump.
"We accept – we will investigate this," Schiff said, referring to another Trump tweet in which
the president likened the alleged wiretap to a "Nixon/Watergate" style scandal.
"If a sitting U.S. president alleging that his predecessor engaged in the most unscrupulous and
unlawful conduct that is also a scandal, if those allegations prove to be false," Schiff said.
"And we should be able to determine in fairly short order whether this accusation was true or false."
Nunes told reporters last week that he had seen no evidence of improper contacts between the Trump
team and Russian officials. He repeated that assertion Tuesday, stressing that it was common practice
for incoming administrations to meet with diplomats.
He added that based on his understanding of the transcripts of calls between Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, there was nothing inappropriate
or suspect about the substance of the conversation.
Nunes also questioned the official explanation for why Flynn's calls were recorded. Was it actually
because of "incidental collection" – as the intelligence community has argued – "or was it something
else?" he asked.
"It's important for us to know whether or not the Department of Justice or any other agency tried
to get a warrant on anybody related to the Trump campaign -– or any other campaign for that matter,"
Nunes said, explaining that the committee wanted to "verify" that the intelligence community was
using its surveillance authorities "ethically, responsibly and by the law."
Nunes may have a chance to grill intelligence community members about that on March 20, when
he plans to hold an open hearing as part of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into
allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
The guest list for the hearing is formidable, but not entirely comprehensive: Nunes and Schiff
agreed to invite FBI Director James Comey, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, former
CIA director John Brennan, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former acting
attorney general Sally Yates, and two senior officers of CrowdStrike – the company that found proof
that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee.
Schiff said Tuesday that he plans "on asking the director of the FBI directly whether there was
any wiretap directed at Mr. Trump or his associates" at the hearing.
"... Thus, it comes as no surprise that the NSA and likely the CIA continue with their spying, this time on our "the president and his men." This is highly dangerous to our republic, and, as found by one of the few intellectually honest and courageous federal judges on the bench in two cases which I filed a few years ago against the NSA, this conduct is "almost Orwellian," that is, reminiscent of George Orwell's prophesy in his landmark book, "1984." Orwell's "Big Brother" has indeed come to pass, as Judge Leon held in ruling in my favor in these lawsuits. (For more information, see FreedomWatchUSA.org .) ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA), having previously been disclosed by Edward Snowden and my whistleblower
client Dennis Montgomery to have unconstitutionally and illegally spied on the telephonic metadata,
internet, and social media communications of hundreds of millions of American citizens - including
Supreme Court justices, hundreds of lower court judges, prominent businessmen like Trump himself,
and ordinary American activists like yours truly - is at it again!
This time, with the resignation of Trump White House National Security Adviser General Michael
Flynn last night - based on telephone NSA intercepts he allegedly had with the Russian ambassador
- it's clear that the NSA is spying on the president, his White House, and the administration in
general.
This is highly dangerous, particularly since the intelligence agencies are chock full of loyalists
to former President Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their leftist comrades.
They are also stung by President Trump's criticism of their incompetence, partisanship, and lawlessness
under the direction of former Director of National Security James Clapper, who lied to under oath
to Congress about his wholesale illegal spying, yet as a card carrying member of the Washington,
D.C., establishment got off scot free from prosecution. And, then there is former CIA Director John
Brennan, who was literally at war with President-elect Trump as the hand-picked intelligence hack
of Obama himself. Even after his resignation a day prior to the inauguration of President Trump,
many of Brennan's agents remain in place at the CIA
Thus, it comes as no surprise that the NSA and likely the CIA continue with their spying, this
time on our "the president and his men." This is highly dangerous to our republic, and, as found
by one of the few intellectually honest and courageous federal judges on the bench in two cases which
I filed a few years ago against the NSA, this conduct is "almost Orwellian," that is, reminiscent
of George Orwell's prophesy in his landmark book, "1984." Orwell's "Big Brother" has indeed come
to pass, as Judge Leon held in ruling in my favor in these lawsuits. (For more information, see
FreedomWatchUSA.org .)
My success in this litigation caused Congress to enact the USA Freedom Act, which requires the
intelligence agencies to get warrants to obtain telephonic metadata based on a showing of probable
cause that terrorism is afoot or that a crime is in the act of being committed. But it's now clear
that, as has been documented time-in and time-out in court filings and from other sources, the NSA
and likely the CIA continue to have no respect for the law.
Now the NSA and likely the CIA as well have predictably turned their sights on the President of
the United States and his White House. This is not just an outrage, it threatens to unleash tyranny
the likes of which this nation has never seen. Because if the intelligence agencies are allowed to
continue, the real likelihood of coercion and blackmail will, as is also predicted, become the norm.
And, when this happens, our democracy will have been destroyed, much less the hope of the new Trump
administration, on behalf of all of us, to "Make America Great Again."
Of course, restoring the nation to greatness may not what the hacks at the NSA, CIA, and other
intelligence agencies may have in mind. The NSA and CIA, with this spying, holds a "Sword of Damocles"
over the heads of President Trump and his administration and in many ways they are control of the
fate of the United States. If King George III had had this power in the days leading up to the American
Revolution, our Founding Fathers would never had made to Philadelphia to debate, agree on, and ultimately
sign the Declaration of Independence. They would have been picked up by the Red Coats, arrested,
imprisoned, and ultimately executed.
I will be going back to Judge Leon in our ongoing cases to hold the NSA and CIA in contempt for
continuing its apparently illegal spying which threatens all of us. If there is one jurist who might
protect We the People, Judge Leon is the one. If not, then American patriots regrettably may ultimately
decide to take matters into their own hands, as happened 1776.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public
interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. To
read more of his reports,
Go Here Now .
"... Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same. ..."
"... According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP] ..."
"... Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf. ..."
"... Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson. ..."
What we must presume has been a behind the scene conflict between politicized elements of America's rather vast intelligence infrastructure
[at least 17 discreet agencies, which doesn't take "dark op" players into account] leading up to and now following the November 8
election, has ingloriously boiled over into a public cat fight.
If not for the subject matter the scene would be reminiscent of the now semi-ancient but nonetheless still hilarious Mad Magazine
cartoon series, Spy vs. Spy it's gotten that bad.
The basic thesis, doggedly argued by the most politicized of the various intelligence agencies' nodes - John Brennan's CIA – is
that Vlad Putin's operatives were responsible for the DNC/John Podesta hack which Hillary supporters believe threw the election into
the Dem's nightmare scenario, victory by the Blond Barbarian from New York, Donald J. Trump.
Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a
gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth
with an astounding 21,000 plus employees,
there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same.
According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely
flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution,
India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see,
The Ten Biggest American
Intelligence Failures , FP]
To some observers the very idea that a government organization with the charter of the CIA would not INHERENTLY be politicized
is foolish:
"Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain
itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think
it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question
will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers." [source,
Has the CIA Been Politicized? , Mises Institute]
So much for background and generalizations, let's turn to the real matter at hand, John Brennan's performance as Obama's lap dog,
parroting [highly questionable at best] the Democrat line that Putin put Trump in the Oval Office and is therefore an illegitimate
president.
This line of attack is so common within the modern progressive/Marxist Democrat Party that it would normally have little effect
outside the I95 corridor except for the fact that this one has a very visible [and presumed by many to be beyond reproach] and public
champion, John O. Brennan and his war-toy, the Central Intelligence Agency.
We believe for a number of reasons that in his effort to discredit Mr. Trump, Brennan is acting as an intelligence operative doing
[a uniquely narcissistic] president's bidding.
Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with
desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent
attack on Brennan's turf.
An above the fold feature story in the January 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal reflects this view:
"President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would
restructure and pare back the nation's top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said advisers also are working on a plan
to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people
out into field posts around the world. The CIA declined to comment.
'The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized,' said the individual, who is close
to the Trump transition. 'They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.'"
[source, Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes,
Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul , Wall St. Journal, January 5, 2017]
Exhibit two might be a bit less speculative:
"In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence
that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the
e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director
of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.
The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John
Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.
Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American
interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security
advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked
Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson.
During the 34 minute speech [video below] Brennan rendered his bizarre - near love affair - with Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mKUpmFb4h_U
[approximately 5:40 into the speech]
"...And as part of that experience, to learn about the goodness and beauty of Islam....I came to see Islam not as it is often
misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity...[breaks into spoken Arabic]
[approximately 7:30 into the speech]
"...But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates
from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race
or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our families. To
practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve
in positions across the Middle East...as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.
In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.
I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege [he
corrects himself] that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds ...Jerusalem, where three
great faiths come together..." [see, William Mayer,
John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists ]
The use of the Arabic term - Al Quds - for the capital of Israel, Jerusalem by such a high ranking member of any American administration
is really without precedent, leading one to view with great suspicion the allegiance of Brennan as well as raising substantial questions
about his boss.
For our fourth exhibit, we turn simply to the career of Mr. Brennan. He was recruited by the CIA straight out of college, proceeded
to then serve for 25 years as a field agent followed by a long list of high level intel type government jobs. It's our judgment that
though the CIA director really doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the box, that persona is a façade hiding a very skilled
operator who views his current attack on the incoming president as if it were a clandestine assignment in some godforsaken part of
the planet.
In short Brennan is a man on a mission, Obama's bagman.
And finally, as our fifth exhibit let's examine the logic, or lack thereof of why someone like Vlad Putin would prefer Trump over
Hillary, thus providing him with motive.
Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that Putin directed a group of Russia's best programmers to hack into the DNC's Internet
network knowing that internal email would make Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party look so bad that voters would decide
to award the election to Trump.
What on earth would motivate the wily Russian strongman to prefer Trump over Hillary, consider the facts.
1. It's
common knowledge that Hillary's bathroom server network was hacked at least 5 times by foreign intelligence agencies. Thus, her
trading access for money through the Clinton Foundation would be well known to a group of individuals eager to exploit such weaknesses.
So it follows that if Putin was clever enough to hack into the DNC which had a more secure computer network than Hillary's, he had
at the same time a literal encyclopedia of dirt on the Clintons.
This of course would make Hillary, as president an obvious target for blackmail.
Think of what a crafty ex-KGB officer could do with only 1% of the type of information which was so inelegantly stored on the
Clinton email server, let alone the whole enchilada.
It would have made Hillary literally a puppet of Vlad Putin.
2. Contrast this with Trump's promise to rebuild the military as well as America's infrastructure and take an aggressive stance
against America's foes.
Sorry, it just doesn't fly. The idea of Putin hacking Trump to victory is absurd and just the last in a very long list of excuses
why one of the worst candidates for president in modern American history lost on November 8.
"... But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline
Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike
he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the
President's steeliness. ..."
"... "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only
reinforced the president's instincts. ..."
"... The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story
makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a
campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign
advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus. ..."
"... In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed. ..."
"... There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging
steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right. ..."
"... There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify
himself). ..."
"... In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one
at that. ..."
"... By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get
Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse,
at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been
slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared ..."
But I'm very interested in how the stories are structured differently. With Angler 1.0, the story was very clearly about Dick
Cheney and the methods he used to manipulate Bush into following his advice. Here, the story is really about John Brennan, Obama's
Cheney, portrayed deep in thought and foregrounding Obama in the article's picture. Indeed, halfway through, the story even gives
biographical background on Brennan, the classic "son of Irish immigrants" story, along with Harold Koh's dubious endorsement of Brennan's
"moral rectitude."
But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline
Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he
confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better:
seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness.
The Silent Sources for the Story
I already pointed out how, after presenting
unambiguous evidence of Brennan's past on-the-record lies, the story backed off calling him on it.
But there are other ways in which this story shifts the focus away from Brennan.
A remarkable number of the sources for the story spoke on the record: Tom Donilon, Cameron Munter, Dennis Blair, Bill Daley, Jeh
Johnson, Michael Hayden, Jim Jones, Harold Koh, Eric Holder, Michael Leiter, John Rizzo, and John Bellinger. But it's not until roughly
the 3,450th word of a 6,000 word article that Brennan is first quoted–and that's to largely repeat the
pre-emptive lies of his drone speech from last month.
"The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons' lives," Mr. Brennan said in an interview. "It is the
option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don't like the fact that people have to die. And so he
wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base,
the imminence of the threat, all of these things."
That is the only on-the-record direct quote from Brennan in the entire article, in spite of the centrality of Brennan to the story.
And I would bet several of the sources quoted anonymously in the section describing Obama's method of counting the dead (which
still ignores the women and children) are Brennan: "a top White House adviser" describing how sharp Obama was in the face of the
first civilian casualties; "a senior administration official" claiming, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, that the
number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan were in "single digits."
Note, too, the reference to a memo his campaign national security advisors wrote him.
"Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that
only reinforced the president's instincts.
The memo was written not long after Brennan
started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it.
Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson
was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively
national security focus.
In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed.
The Pro-Drone Narrator
Given that fact, I'm really interested in the several places where the story adopts a pro-drone viewpoint (it does adopt a more
critical stance in the narrative voice at the end).
For example, the story claims, in the first part of the story, that the drone strikes "have eviscerated Al Qaeda" without presenting
any basis for that claim. This, in spite of the fact that al Qaeda has expanded in Yemen since we've started hitting it with drones.
Later, the article uncritically accepts the claim that the drone–regardless of the targeting that goes into using it–is a "precision
weapon" that constitutes a rejection of a "false choice between our safety and our ideals."
The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon,
the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration's "false choice
between our safety and our ideals."
For fucks sake! This article describes how the White House has adopted a "guilt by association" approach to drone targeting. It
describes renamed signature strikes (though presents what is almost certainly an outdated picture of the targeting review process).
Yet it uncritically accepts this "precision" claim–which clearly reflects a source's judgment–as true.
Finally, a potentially even bigger bias is in the presentation of the al-Majala strike on December 17, 2009.
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of
cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored.
Videos of children's bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash
that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.
The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.
The story doesn't name who the target was; it says only that the strike killed him, and the NYT repeats the claim without asking
for such details.
As I have noted
, though, sources speaking immediately after the strike
explained
the target struck where "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." (The quotes here are from the source, not
the ABC report.) There was, of course, an imminent attack being planned at the time, one about which we had at least some advance
intelligence. That was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attack. I'm pretty sure the strike on a Yemeni site 10 days after he left the
country missed him, though.
These last two quotes–perhaps all three–look like comments a White House figure (and it'll surprise no one that I suspect it's
Brennan) gave on deep background, such that his exact words are used, but without quotation marks or any indication of the source.
Credible journalists would have no other reason to make such unsubstantiated claims, particularly the "precision" claim that they
disprove elsewhere in the same article.
Who Okayed Killing Mehsud's Wife?
Ultimately, the depiction of John Brennan as Obama's puppetmaster is most interesting in the telling of Baitullah Mehsud's killing.
This version conflicts in key ways from the story that Joby Warrick told in his book, starting with
the uranium
claim that provided the excuse for targeting him. And while I'm working from memory, I believe Warrick portrayed the approval
of that killing–which might kill Mehsud's wife in addition to Mehsud–as involving Panetta alone. This version says Panetta consulted
Obama–through Brennan.
Then, in August 2009, the CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But
taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama's standard of "near certainty" of no innocents
being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly result in such deaths: he was with his wife at his in-laws' home.
"Many times," General Jones said, in similar circumstances, "at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target
had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn't."
But not this time. Mr. Obama, through Mr. Brennan, told the CIA to take the shot, and Mr. Mehsud was killed, along with his
wife and, by some reports, other family members as well, said a senior intelligence official.
I'm not surprised by (or critical of) the conflict in the stories. It seems like Warrick relied primarily on CIA sources telling
a packaged version of the strike, while this story tells another packaged version of it. (Note, curiously, Panetta is only named
in this passage and never quoted.)
But I am struck by how obviously this story–whether filtered through Brennan as a direct source for this story, or filtered through
Brennan for Panetta's consumption at the time–depends on John Brennan to narrate Obama's role. If he weren't involved somehow, the
NYT wouldn't have included the "through Mr. Brennan." And while the detail doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things–Mehsud's
wife's death will weigh no more or less against Obama's and Brennan's record than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or the Bedouin women and
children at al-Majala–it is a testament to the degree to which this story, and so many of those cited in this article, depend on
Brennan narrating Obama's role.
Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She's known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery
of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps. Marcy Wheeler
is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog,
publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the
author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Marcy has a PhD from
the University of Michigan, where she researched the "feuilleton," a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important
in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations
in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.
Like you EW, I got the sense that this NYT story was the product of a number of different motivations.
There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his
charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right.
There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify
himself).
There are a number of attempts by lesser Doubting Thomases to question the sanctity of both Saint Obama and Father John.
There is a certain amount of seemingly NYT editorial tut-tutting as well as cheerleading.
In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive
one at that.
By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to
get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political
discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism
and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared.
Am I alone in thinking that Preet
Bharara, the just fired US Attorney for Southern District of New York, would be the ideal Special
Prosecutor of the Trump - Russia investigation
Bharara did not push back against "too big to prosecute" and sat out the biggest white collar
crime wave in the history of the world, so why is he such a saint?
I don't think you considered the bigger picture here which includes in Bharara's case his bosses
to whom he would have to had run any cases up the flag pole for approval and Obama and Company
were not at the time into frying Wall Street for their crimes b/c they were into restarting the
Bush/Cheney damaged, almost ruined, US and global Economy.
If you did not noticed Vault 7 scandal completely overtook everything else now. This is a
real game changer.
Just think, how many million if not billion dollars this exercise in removing the
last traces of democracy from the USA and converting us into a new Democratic Republic of Germany,
where everybody was controlled by STASI, cost. And those money were spend for what ?
BTW the Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German government.
If this is not the demonstration of huge and out of civil control raw power of "deep state"
I do not know what is.
If you are not completely detached from really you should talk about Vault 7. This is huge,
Snowden size scandal that is by the order of magnitude more important for the country then all
those mostly fake hints on connections of Trump and, especially "Russian hacking".
Tell me who stole the whole arsenal of CIA hacking tools with all the manuals? Were those
people Russians?
If not, you should print your last post, shred is and eat it with borsch ;-).
In the world of intelligence false flag operations is a standard tactics. Now what ? Difficult
situation for a Midwesterner...
libezkova -> libezkova...
Another difficult to stomach hypothesis:
"Boris and Natasha" version of hacking might well be a false flag operation. How about developing
Russian-looking hacking tools in CIA? To plant fingerprints and get the warrant for monitoring
Trump communications.
VAULT 7: CIA Staged Fake Russian Hacking to Set Up Trump - Russian Cyber-Attack M.O. As False
Flag
"The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis
makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each
time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened."
- Sen. Frank Church
WikiLeaks Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential
documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an
isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley,
Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties
and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses,
trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation.
This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code,
gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated
among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has
provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program,
its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S.
and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows
and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security
Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very
different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's
hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA
(its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not. ..."
"... What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone. ..."
"... This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic. ..."
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates.
A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by
political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something
that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the
Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would
be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed,
Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden.
Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This
is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena
power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus,
one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin claims "the evidence is overwhelming" that the Obama administration spied on Donald
Trump leading up his inauguration
, RadarOnline.com has learned.
"I'm saying the public record is damning of the Obama administration. It was investigating the campaign of a presidential candidate
of an opposing party during the course of the campaign. Its use of FISA, loosening of NSA distribution requirements, husbanding
and protecting information at the behest of White House staff on the way out the door, and recent leaks of confidential and perhaps
classified information is extraordinary," Levin said in the CNN Reliable Sources newsletter.
"... FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance." ..."
"... Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones. ..."
"... Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ." ..."
"... The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House." ..."
"... Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress . ..."
"... Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. ..."
So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But
getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be true is that
the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what
authority and who was targeted.
FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which
almost always allows
the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the
court refused permission,
according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests
to conduct national security surveillance."
Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request
that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was
granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and
the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones.
Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous
on several levels." Others have characterized them as a "
non-denial denial ."
To the Obama camp's claim that the president didn't "order" surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:
"First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance. And
by statute, it is the Justice department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.
So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff 'ordered' surveillance of Trump and his associates.
The
issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether,
if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive
and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate
of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the
candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened
without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House."
And as journalist Mickey Kaus commented on Twitter, there's a reason why presidents name
trusted allies as attorney general.
As close as former attorney general Loretta Lynch was to Obama, and as supportive as she was of his political goals, it seems very
unlikely that this was some sort of rogue operation.
It's certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn't be the first president to
engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic
spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the
Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter
but also of his parents. Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA
spied on Congress
.
Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents.
After all, the notorious
IRS scandal was about exactly that.
Trump has called for a
congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted
Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation,
it will turn out that nothing improper happened – that this is a lot of smoke, but that there's no fire. But we can't know without
an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process,
those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.
Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant,
deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was – as it appears to have been
– excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as
First
Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.
Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we're dealing with something worse. Hopefully
not, but there's no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, "Democracy dies in darkness."
Let's shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.
I believe what Charles Hugh-Smith does not understand that CIA is connected to Wall Street and large financial institutions and
always was. It escaped the control of "surface state" as early as 1964. although there were some back-and-forth movement, such as Church
committee and Pike commission. CIA acts more like Praetorian Guard of Wall Street then the US presidents. As pike Pike sarcastically
noted about CIA attempt to hide its activities from American public in his reply to Corby "First of all, it's a delight to receive two
letters from you not stamped 'Secret' on every page." Accordingly, on 31 July 1975, the Pike Committee held its first hearing on the
CIA budget. Elmer B. Staats, the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (GAO), was the first witness. Staats testified
that the GAO had no idea how much money the CIA spent or whether its management of that money was effective or wasteful because his
agency had no access to CIA budgetary information. The Pike group's final report concluded that the foreign intelligence budget was
three or four times larger than Congress had been told; that money appropriated for the IC was hidden throughout the entire Federal
budget; that the total amount of funds expended on intelligence was extremely difficult Taking on the issue of secrecy, the report argued
that "taxpayers and most of Congress did not know and cannot find out how much they spend on spy activities." The committee saw this
as being in direct conflict with the Constitution, which required a regular and public accounting for all funds spent by the Federal
Government.
25 The document then addressed Colby's argument that the Soviets would benefit enormously from disclosure. The report claimed
that the Soviets probably already had a detailed account of US intelligence spending, far more than just the budget total. It concluded
that "in all likelihood, the only people who care to know and do not know these costs are the American taxpayers."
26
The Pike Committee Investigations and the CIA - Central Intelligence Agency
Notable quotes:
"... Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties? If there are no limits on CIA powers and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing. ..."
"... Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/04/erik-prince-nypd-ready-make-ar... ..."
"... "They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said. ..."
"... McAfee says the cia was handed unlimited money by Obama to hack for him and the nsa, cia and fbi need total restructuring: "The CIA Just Got Nuked!" The Legendary John McAfee on 'Vault 7' Revelation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRBKpeMHT5E ..."
"... Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America. This has been in the works for decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4 ..."
"... President Kennedy warns us as well, which probably cost him his life... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafZkjiMpjU ..."
"... Now the CIA (rogue parts) has their balls in a vice, squeeze them. Trump should tweet "I find the things released in Vault 7 disturbing and we are investigating all aspects" ..."
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle - it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the
nation.
When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests ?
The CIA and its political enablers claim the agency's essentially unlimited powers, partially revealed by Wikileak's Vault 7 , pose
no threat to America's interests, since they are intended to "defend" American interests.
This is the rationale presented by neocon CIA allies in both political parties: the CIA can't possibly threaten America's interests
because the CIA defines America's interests.
This is the wormhole down which civil liberties and democracy have drained. It is an extraordinarily defining moment in American
history when the director of the FBI publicly declares that there is no such thing as "absolute privacy" in the U.S.
In effect, privacy is now contingent on the level of interest the Security State has in the private conversation/data. If we read
the U.S. Constitution, we do not find such contingencies: civil liberties are absolute. Post-1790 presidents have temporarily mooted
civil liberties in time of war, and the CIA-led camp of the Deep State has justified its unlimited powers by effectively declared
"a state of war is now permanent and enduring."
So what's left to defend if America has become the enemy of civil liberties and democracy , i.e. become a totalitarian state ruled
by Security Services and their political henchmen and apologists?
I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements
of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the
neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and
globally.
I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as
the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush,
Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective
oversight.
This profound split in the Deep State has now broken into open warfare. The first salvo was the absurd propaganda campaign led
by Establishment mouthpieces The New York Times and The Washington Post claiming Russian agents had "hacked" the U.S. election to
favor Trump.
This fact-free propaganda campaign failed --having no evidence didn't work quite as well as the NYT and Wapo expected-- and so
the propaganda machine launched the second salvo , accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy.
The evidence for this claim was equally laughable, and that campaign has only made the Establishment, its propaganda mouthpieces
and the neocon Deep State look desperate and foolish on the global and domestic stages.
The desperate neocon Deep State and its Democratic Party allies went to absurd lengths to undermine Trump via the "Boris ad Natasha"
strategy of accusing Trump of collaborating with the Evil Russkies, even going so far as to briefly exhume former President G.W.
Bush from deep-freeze to make a fool of himself, saying the Trump-Evil Russkies connection should be "investigated."
Now the rogue elements have launched a counterstrike--Vault 7. Here is one example of how quickly the CIA's over-reach has been
absorbed by the body politic:
We now know that the CIA maintained a special program (UMBRAGE) to mimic Russia-based hackers and create false trails back to
fictitious "Russian hackers." A number of highly experienced analysts who reviewed the supposed "Russian hacks" had suggested the
"evidence" smelled of false trails-- not just bread crumbs, but bread crumbs heavy-handedly stenciled "this is Russian malware."
The body count from Vault 7 has not yet been tallied, but it wouldn't surprise me if former President Obama and his team eventually
end up as political casualties. Non-partisan observers are noting all this over-reach occurred on Obama's watch, and it hasn't gone
unnoticed that one of Obama's last executive orders stripped away the last shreds of oversight of what could be "shared" (or invented)
between the Security Agencies.
Indeed, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have placed all their chips on the increasingly unviable claim
that the CIA is the squeaky clean defender of America.
Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil
liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties? If there are no limits on CIA powers
and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing.
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation.
Citizens who define America's interests as civil liberties and democracy should be deeply troubled by the Establishment's surrender
of these in favor of a National Security State with essentially no limits.
Americans tasked with defending America's "interests" globally should be asking if a CIA/NSA et al. with unlimited power is detrimental
to America's soft and hard power globally, and toxic to its influence.
The answer is obvious: a CIA with unlimited power and the backing of a corrupt Establishment and media is more than detrimental
to America's soft and hard power globally --it is disastrous and potentially fatal to America's interests, standing and influence.
Those of us on the sidelines can only hope that the progressive wing of the Deep State, the rogue elements who see the terrible
danger of an unlimited National Security State, will succeed in undermining the powerful political support for this toxic totalitarian
regime.
I like my FAKE NEWS to be about RUSSIA . Hut, Hut, HIKE -- The dUmmycrats demanded the March 20 investigation into, of all
things, ELECTION TAMPERING. We know they did this right through the entire thing. Every time Burnie got moar votes in the primaries,
Honest Hill'rey's LEAD GOT BIGGER.
Hill'rey got debate questions ahead of time DOH!
It got so blatant DNC boss Wasserman either quit or got fired, take your pick, then half-ass denied she would EVER tip the
fake scales for Hill'rey. A couple days later she signs on DIRECTLY WITH THE HILL'REY CAMPAIGN. Whooops!
Trumps goes on Twitter and says then pResidont Barkey spied on him at Trump Tower. ALL the establishment TURDS, in unison,
squeal, "that's crazy".
A couple of days later Wikileaks drops Vault 7 and we learn that, courtesy of the patriots of CEE-EYE-AY, our TVs and phones
are spying on everybody and they have "Umbrage" software that can make it look like anybody did it.
James Comey asks the DOJ to confirm this is crazy by disclaiming Trump's crazy accusations and THEY DON'T.
FUCK YOU!
Remember class, Comey opened Hill'rey investigation #2 after Chuck Schumer's protégé, disgraced pedo, pervert, former congrossman
Anthony Weiner's laptop popped up. Then, another pervert, former pResidont $lick Willie, who himself was IMPEACHED for lying about
an affair with an intern and started a BOMBING CAMPAIGN on the SAME DAY , taps Lorretta Lynch on the tarmac and POOF, Hill'rey
is exonerated again.
DJT - "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days,"
"They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering,
including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more
than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said.
Ranking member Adam Schiff is going to insist the above is all outside the scope of their fake investigation, and the majority
rEpublitards will say they're opposed to this but say sorry "It's just too hard". OR, NONE of the history of this situation WILL
EVEN OCCUR TO ANY OF THEM. RUSSIA!
McAfee says the cia was handed unlimited money by Obama to hack for him and the nsa, cia and fbi need total restructuring:
"The CIA Just Got Nuked!" The Legendary John McAfee on 'Vault 7' Revelation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRBKpeMHT5E
I was thinking about all this and I'm worried that their only answer will be to take Donald out. If that were to happen would
things go right back to "there is nothing to see here" press and "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" government?
or have the dominos already started to fall?
I said it before and I will say it again. It is going to get incredibly ugly before it gets better. Buckle up people. And never
lose lose your resolve to fight this fight. Well, that is, if you prefer Freedom over some government agency controlling your
life.
I feel sorry for all of the people who join the military who think they are going to defend our freedoms and the constitution.
They don't even realize their own government is taking those freedoms away faster than any foreign enemy could in hundreds of
years. This is why people revolted and left Britain for America. Sadly there is no where else to run or hide from busy bodies
who think they know what is best for everyone else.
Anyone who joined during Bush's last couple of years and all of Obama's term is an idiot.
I understand the patriotism after 9/11 (no matter whether you believe that it was a conspiracy or not. Only a very small percentage
did not believe the official story right after it happened) .
TRUMP is TOO QUIET about all this WikiLeaks dump. And you would expect him to feel vindicated regarding the wiretap. But no..
he's quiet... TOO QUIET. If they got some dirt on him...just a little... bye bye MAGA. He'll dance like a bitch for the Deep State.
And
1. by leaving Pence to be too LOUD (and Stupid; for fuck sake this Vice President tries to take over Trump, In Europe talked
shit with NATO behind Trump's back, now this, instead of being silent and just go to women' marches ):
I like the idea of putting recruiter offices on the top floor of VA hospitals: potential recruits have to thread the gauntlet
through all the wards on the way up. It won't discourage everyone, but that decision will be a little better-informed.
I fully understand those sentiments, and largely agree with them. Some of us knew the score (9/11, police state, Zionism, etc.)
and joined for one reason: the combat/weapons training and to get first-hand experience dealing with stressful, chaotic situations
- all with an eye toward the time when those attributes will be direly needed! Soon, I suspect. There are many good people in
the military who know the score, especially in the NCO corps.
Granted, most people that read ZH do so for the gloom reports. Nevertheless, no one is taking out Trump . If they did, there
would be revolution. (Although crybaby liberals might want revolution if they don't get their way, so I could be wrong.)
CIA is how America fights wars before the actual war using non-Americans in foreign soil. Then economic sanctions to play chicken
with money ...but house (wall st.) always wins this game. And when all else fails, then US military is deployed ...with mercenaries
to hide actual #s.
Why? .....because they know you don't want half of your tax dollars going to wars. But strong military only protects the haves....the
billionare class with lots of paper wealth.
How adorable, another goyim playing the victim card and pretending that Christian Europeans and their American descendents
were just moral angels living in a utopia until the Jews showed up. Even a cursory, non-leftist review of the behavior of Christians
since they decided which fictional books would form their religious cannon will demonstrate they were perfectly terrible to each
other and others more or less continuously for thousands of years. Their elite colluded amongst themselves, as they do now, against
the common man. Pretending like the most recent adoption of Jews as middle management for their empire is not part of their usual
divide and conquer plan is not merely sticking your head in the sand, but all the way up your colon.
The real absurdity of your comments is that given the most recent CIA revelations, we are talking about a very goyim agency
that has been acting this way since it's inception. Are you really going to argue that Allen Dulles was a crypto-Jew, or that
the folks that brought Nazis back into the US after the war and incorporated them into government just woke up one day and decided
to hand the keys of the kingdom over to the Jews? It's abusrd. While there is certainly a certain annoying hysteria and neuroticism
that plagues Jewish intellectuals in America, you can spin however you want, but they're not in charge, they're a few pegs below.
The Jewish thing is so out there in the open--that is mighty convenient, no? You don't have to exactly dig deep to find all these
Jews seemingly running things. That is by design, as it has always been. When SHTF, who do you think people are going to turn
on? This whole thing should be obvious to ZHers by now, by you all continue to get hoodwinked by one of the oldest plays in the
elite playbook. It also works out nicely because, as I mentioned above, it allows Christian whites to absolve themselves of the
sins of their own ancestors (and where do you think they may have gotten that idea from?).
Anyway, never mind me, and commence with your myopic paranoia and continue missing the bigger picture.
You're generally looking at internal Jewish power struggles and factions, day after day. They're pretty much openly interceding
in Israeli elections, then turning around to have overwhelming influence in American elections. It's an exceptionally special
relationship, apparently. And the CIA is up to its careerist eye balls in it, just like the Bush family.
One faction may be better than another. Trump, supported by alternative Jewish media/Drudge/Breitbart/etc. was better than
all the certified kosher candidates that neoconservatives tried to pick over him. And then he was better than Hillary. Yay...
whatever.
It's still kind of sad that no one else has much representation in their own supposed country, as an ethnic oligarchy or some
sort of "globalist"/international/Communist power structure has formed in the usual manner. The key words are nationalist vs.
internationalist, not any other ideologies that are secondary to "Who we are..." as "We the people..."
former CIA agent Robert Steele about the future of the Trump Presidency and the Deep State and a possible impending economic
crisis. He says they will collapse the economy this summer while Soros will have Berkeley times 1000 out in the streets and Trump
will resign. Says Rinse is just a spy for Paul Ryan and MacMaster is a spy for John McCain. He said he has made so many mistakes
and has a rotten staff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ZuzE3RYX0&feature=youtu.be
Now the CIA (rogue parts) has their balls in a vice, squeeze them. Trump should tweet "I find the things released in Vault
7 disturbing and we are investigating all aspects"
I think Trump has their balls in a vice, at least the actors in congress.
The March 20 hearing is on a Monday, so if he starts tweeting about the Weiner laptop on the Friday before, and FORCES it into
the fake news, WATCH OUT, and get your popcorn ready.
Veritas vos liberabit. The truth will set you free. [The
English variant "And Ye Shall Know the Truth and
the Truth Shall Make You Free" is carved in stone in the Original Headquarters Building (OHB) of the
Central Intelligence Agency. ]
The motto of the Criminal Insurgent Assassins -and some day, the truth will set us free; just as it did when the East Germans
stormed STASI headquarters and started ransacking their 'secret' files.
They can't win hearts and minds of people with discredited neoliberal ideology. So they need to spy on them.
Notable quotes:
"... I find this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on. ..."
"... Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant to allow for monitoring. ..."
"... What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. ..."
"... three Trump associates were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama. ..."
"... I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored all the time. And that's the rub. ..."
"... which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American ..."
"... The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador, he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this. ..."
"... My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being prosecuted???) ..."
"... Getting "stuff" on people so that they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention Roy Cohn? ..."
"... Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action. ..."
"... Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! ..."
"... Whoa. Wilkerson looks on edge, usually very cool in these pieces. ..."
"... I have the impression he can't contain himself on the subject of Brennan. Is that your take? ..."
I find
this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively
says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on.
At the 50,000 foot level, Trump's claim is trivial. Anyone who paid attention to the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the
NSA is in a total data acquisition mode, hoovering up information from smart devices and able to use computers and tablets as monitoring
devices. But Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant
to allow for monitoring. And pinning surveillance on Obama personally was another huge stretch. In other words, Trump took what
could have been an almost certain statement of fact, and by larding it up with dodgy particulars, pushed it well into crazypants
terrain.
What made Trump look bad was the FBI making clear it was not snooping on Trump, when the FBI would have been involved in a wiretap.
Lambert and I discussed that it wasn't hard to come up with scenarios that weren't wiretaps by which Trump could have been spied
upon while keeping Obama Administration hands clean. The most obvious was to have another member of the Five Eyes do the dirty work.
What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this
matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. And he states
that the idea that Lambert and I had casually bandied about, that a foreign spy organization like the GCHQ, did Trump dirty work
for the US government, is seen as a real possibility in the intelligence community.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fgd4WDMG4mQ
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. Welcome to another edition of the Wilkerson Report.
Of course the accusations are flying in every direction in D.C.. The latest Donald Trump saying that President Obama spied on
him, ordered the listening of his telephone conversations. Now joining us to talk about these allegations is Larry Wilkerson.
Larry joins us from Falls Church, Virginia. Larry was the former Chief of Staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Currently
an Adjunct Professor of Goverment at the College of Willam and Mary and a regular contributor to The Real News Network.
(discussion)
PAUL JAY: So, Larry what do you make of these allegations? Most of the media seems to be saying Trump is alleging this in order
to distract from the real controversy, which they say his and his administration's connections to Putin and Russia. What do you make
of Trump's allegations?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, I'm certainly not one, Paul, to defend HMS Trump and that whole entourage of people, but I will paint you
a hypothetical here. There are a number of events that have occurred in the last 96 hours or so that lead me to believe that maybe
even the Democratic party, whatever element of it, approached John Brennan at the CIA, maybe even the former president of the United
States. And John Brennan, not wanting his fingerprints to be on anything, went to his colleague in London GCHQ, MI6 and essentially
said, "Give me anything you've got." And he got something and he turned it over to the DNC or to someone like that. And what he got
was GHCQ MI6's tapes of conversations of the Trump administration perhaps, even the President himself. It's really kind of strange,
at least to me, they let the head of that organization go, fired him about the same time this was brewing up. So I'm not one to defend
Trump, but in this case he might be right. It's just that it wasn't the FBI. Comey's right, he wasn't wire-tapping anybody, it was
John Brennan, at the CIA And you say, "What would be John Brennan's motivation?" Well, clearly he wanted to remain Director of the
CIA for Hillary Clinton when she was elected President of the United States, which he had every reason to believe, as did lots of
us, that she would be.
PAUL JAY: Now, Larry, do we have any evidence of this? Is this like a theory or is there some evidence?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, it's a theory that's making its way around some in the intelligence community right now because they know
about the relationship between the CIA and the same sort of capabilities, maybe not quite as vast as the NSA has, but still good
capabilities that exist in London. I mean, otherwise the president just came out and said something was patently false. Generally
speaking, you know, I would agree with that, with regard to this particular individual, but not in this case.
PAUL JAY: Now why would the British go along with this?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, you have to understand this is a real problem, Paul, it's been a problem for a long time. Only certain
governments have national technical means that feature $5 billion satellites orbiting the United States and the rest of the globe
and providing intricate national means of looking at other people 24/7. Even streaming video and so forth. There are only so many
people who can afford that. We're the biggest guy on the block so when we sidle up to France or we sidle up to Germany or Japan or
anybody else, they have two choices, either cooperate with us and share in that treasure trove from time to time or they don't cooperate
with us and I'll tell you what we do, we cut them off. So this is a very incestuous relationship. I saw this up close and personal
when we were saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we had Paris and Tel Aviv and Berlin and London and everybody
agreeing with us. I now know why they agreed with us, more recetively(?) (sound difficulties – 00:04:45 – 00:05:05) You still there?
PAUL JAY: Yeah.
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, they agree with us because they don't have any choice. Their choices are stark. They agree with us and
hope it doesn't rebound to their discredit or hurt them or they don't agree with us and we cut them off.
PAUL JAY: Okay, now let's go back to Trump's allegations. Trump does not seem to be shy about just making stuff up from whole
cloth without any basis at all. Why would one thing this isn't just another fabrication?
LARRY WILKERSON: Paul, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'm not so sure you're right in that–
PAUL JAY: I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking, is there any reason to think that we know that he's not making this up?
LARRY WILKERSON: No, except that the series of events that occurred lead me to believe that John Brennan was, in fact, working
with London and perhaps something came out of that, that might have assured John Brennan of a continuation of his role at the CIA
with a new administration headed by Hillary Clinton. That makes every bit of sense to me when I think about it. And remember, I've
been there and I've seen this stuff.
PAUL JAY: Okay. We'll have to wait over the next few days or hours and see if more hard evidence follows out. But let's go look
a little further, if you're right, Brennan's helping Clinton, you have different sections of the intelligence community helping various
players. Some of them seem to be turning on Trump, some are feeding Trump, some are supporting him, it's like you got little fiefdoms
in the intelligence community all with their own agendas here.
LARRY WILKERSON: This is very disturbing. It's happened in the past, of course, when we politicized intelligence. It happened
when Bill Casey and Ronald Reagan when Bill Casey made the case for a Soviet buildup so Reagan could justify his arms buildup in
the U.S.. The Soviets were not involved in a buildup at all. That was all fabricated intelligence. It's happened with Henry Kissinger
and Richard Nixon from time to time. But this is a new level of 17 different heavily funded intelligence agencies and groups, headed
by the DNI and the CIA all apparently playing their own little games within various segments of a political community in this country
and leaking accordingly. And I don't eliminate the FBI from that either. Why else would Comey come out, for example, just prior to
the elections and say he had other e-mails and imply that they might be damning of one of the candidates? It's everyone playing in
this game and it's an extremely dangerous game.
PAUL JAY: Is part of what's going on here, is that all of these institutions whether it's CIA or FBI or NSA and on and on with
all the alphabet, that their first priority, their deepest interest is their own agency. Their existence, their funding, their own
jobs, that this is really - it's not about some supposed national interest to start with it starts with just who these guys are and
they become entities unto themselves.
LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely. Hoover, take Hoover at the FBI, during World War II, it can be proven, it can be analytically demonstrated
that Hoover spent more man hours and more money trying to look at his own administration, trying to gain power over elements of that
administration than he did looking at the Nazis. I mean, this is not anything new, it's just come to a depth and a profundity of
action that is scary and dangerous.
When you have your entire intelligence community more interested in its own survival and its own power, and therefore, playing
in politics to the degree that we have it doing so today, you've got a real problem. And I'm not talking about the people beavering
away in the trenches who are trying their best to do a good job, I'm talking about these leaders, these people at the top and the
second tier level, who are participating in this political game in a way that they should not be, but they've been doing for some
time and now they've brought it to a crescendo.
PAUL JAY: Is part of what's happening here an overall decay, if you will, of the state itself, of the American government? Which
is a reflection of what's going on in the economy. You have so much of Wall Street is about pure parasitical investment. There's
more money being invested in derivative gambling and billionaires gambling against billionaires and shorting, kind of manupulating
commodity markets and so on, more money in the parasitical activity than there is investment in productive activity. And these are
the guys that are financing political campaigns even electing presidents, in the case of Robert Mercer, who 's the billionaire who
backed Trump and Bannon. Bannon worked for Mercer. The whole state and the upper echelons in the economy they seem to be into such
practically mafioso short-sightedness. Like, "What can we do today for ourselves and damn what happens later?"
LARRY WILKERSON: The decay of (sound difficulties) empire hat on and I will tell you, yes. You're right. This empire is decaying
at a rapid rate. And it is not just reflected in the fact that we can't govern ourselves, the fact that we have a congress that can't
even see the nation for the trees. My political party, Paul, right now thinks that it's going to achieve its full agenda or at least
a good portion of it while this buffoon in the White House twiddles his thumbs. They don't see the country. They don't care about
the country. All they want to do is achieve their agenda; social, economic and otherwise. This country, in all of its components,
whether it's government or it's finance, economics or whatever, is falling apart.
PAUL JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
I took a glance at the article and read one of its links to the NYTimes article which confirms that three Trump associates
were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama.
Even without digging into the story, the fact that Trump's claim is viewed with such disdain by the MSM has always struck me
as incredulous. I have generally assumed that most communications among people in power is monitored whether legally or not.
I've read most of those. The problem is that the important thing – was a FISA warrant issued – not been confirmed by the government
to my knowledge. Apparently it is secret by law so it is one of those things that the government will neither confirm nor deny
– and I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored
all the time. And that's the rub.
The other thing about the articles is the incredible amount of contradiction (assuming the government officials aren't being
misquoted there are a LOT of things that just don't square).
I think comes down to this – very simply the government/intelligence community (IC) does not really want to admit how many people's
conversations it actually listens to or CAN listen to. Nobody can look at this and say that the 4th amendment is meaningful .
In this case, a U.S. general, working on behalf of the president elect (or was this before Trump was elected?), was monitored
by the IC and removed from office because of illegal leaks. We don't REALLY know why – but the idea that the IC has a veto over
the president's appointees should give everyone pause.
Would a warrant actually be needed? In the New York Time article on January 12, 2017 they say:
After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act - which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the
target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American - the court permitted raw sharing of
emails acquired under that program, too.
The way I understand it (gleaned from a National Review article written by a former justice department lawyer Andrew McCarthy
– I excerpted quite a bit of it, but it is now in skynet heaven )
is that Russki subjects of interest (or any nationality) are always monitored. This means that Americans will occasionally get
MONITORED if in communication with such individuals as well and those communications are STORED (monitored and stored ARE NOT
THE SAME AS LISTENED TO). Now, to actually listen to the Americans in these conversation is what supposedly requires the FISA
warrant – it is suppose to be based on something that the person is acting as an AGENT of a foreign power.
Or the FBI could have been doing just a regular financial fraud investigation between Trump companies and Russia found nothing
(OR found something and IS still investigation), and than passed it over as an intelligence matter. I can't do justice to the
article without being skynetted, so you will have to read the article for yourself if interested.
If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?
So I'm not sure the point about monitored / stored / listened to is the case anymore. The NYT article I referenced is all about
the old privacy rules being removed.
In addition the part of the article I quoted seems to say that isn't the case anymore.
Flynn did a lot of work during the transition from Trump Tower. We know some of his calls where intercepted and not just the
one from the beach.
Evidently Paul Manafort lived in Trump Tower for a while. From the news articles his phone calls where also intercepted.
I did look up a bunch of McCarthy's articles in National Review. Thanks for the pointer.
"If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?"
The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador,
he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this.
My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the
change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being
prosecuted???)
The issue from the NR article is, as I understand it, is that Flynn should not be listened to unless there was some REAL suspicion
that he was an agent and there was a FISA warrant (a former US general is really suspected of being a Russian agent???). So one
can know that Flynn had a conversation with the ambassador (from monitoring) but not the substance unless there was a FISA warrant
– if I am understanding this correctly.
If he wasn't proven to be an agent than that conversation is suppose to go into the "vault" and never be released or acknowledged.
So there are just a lot of things that don't add up.
I'm thinking like the meme "fake news" that the people who started this whole think may regret looking into whether Trump was
improperly monitored after all. BUT I DON"T KNOW – maybe Trump is guilty of something
Does anybody really believe that these people feel bound by law? This is raw power politics. Getting "stuff" on people so that
they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats
and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention
Roy Cohn?
It's not about removing anyone from office but to get them to do your bidding. Likewise it is a big distraction from
the ongoing fraud and corruption consuming this nation. Men like Wilkerson are finally realizing how far along our Mafia culture
has come to complete and utter collapse. Next time the music stops will there be any chairs left?
Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general
will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals
didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action.
As an example, I've seen a number news articles saying Kim Jong-un killed Kim Jong-nam, even though, as far as I can tell,
Kim Jong-un has an airtight alibi, having been in a different country at the time. Most people understand such claims to mean
that functionaries of the North Korean government headed by Kim Jong-un are responsible for the killing and Kim Jong-un is just
used as a metonym for that government.
Same thing with "wiretap". Trump is of a generation where wiretap was a generic term used to refer to any sort of bugging.
Reading them as specific references comes across as a particularly pedantic and uncharitable interpretation.
Actually, checking the tweet, I see Trump wrote "tapp", an even more generic term for using electronic devices to listen in
on other people's private conversations.
Actually it was "wires tapped" with Trump having put the quotes in. So yeah, very generic term. And it says Trump Tower. Doesn't
he own Trump Tower? All that stuff in the Trump Tower is 'his'. So the claim is even more generic.
There were numerous reports that people associated with the campaign (headquarters in Trump Tower) had their phone conversations
intercepted. I assume it was when they were talking to a 'Russian'.
The first thing I thought when I heard this was "Hey, Trump finally attended an intelligence briefing."
If the NSA really is listening to everything, can anyone answer why the powers that be would even bother with an actual wiretap
anymore? Isn't it something anachronistic, like owning a beeper or something?
This is exactly the way I took it–with "obama" and "wiretap" being generic terms. Funnily enough, it made all the furor over
the tweet initially hard to understand. Now it makes the literal parsing look desperate and deliberately obfuscatory.
I find it impossible to believe that the MSM does not know that wiretap = any kind of monitoring/surveillance and that "Obama"
= white house, and/or Obama administration.
There is nothing wrong about doing a story about the nuances of surveillance, but to go on and on and ON about there is no wiretapping
is absurd. And the MSM professes to wonder why people find them unreliable
I may be "mis-remembering" here, but it reminded me of a time when ben bernanke was testifying in front of some congressional
committee or other. A member of the panel referenced the fed "printing" money. Bernanke replied that the fed doesn't "print" money.
They enter it onto a computer. A textbook distinction without a difference.
OH EXACTLY RIGHT!!! To go off on a tangent – to not say that money is "loaned" into existence and as much as you need can be
obtained from the either, just would beg the question of why Goldman Sachs, somebody who managed to lose trillions is deserving
of more loans, but a borrower who was scammed into some mortgage with some skyrocketing interest rate proviso is not. And the
unpalatable answer – the FED is to protect the rich and f*ck the poor .
Trump's language was very clear (at least to my ear) in attributing personal involvement to Obama (calling him a "bad (or sick)
guy"). But with "wiretap" note the use of quotation marks. When I first heard about these tweets the morning after, the first
thing I did was to go to Trump's twitter feed to have a look for myself. For me the quotation marks scanned as scare quotes and
I instinctively interpreted "wiretap" in its generic sense.
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is
McCarthyism!
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court
earlier. A NEW LOW!
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just
prior to Election!
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad
(or sick) guy!
In his autobiography "Memoirs of a Revolutionist," Peter Kropotkin describes being interrogated by a member of the Okhrana,
the Tsar's secret police, after his arrest.
In the course of the interview, Kropotkin expresses amazement that the secret police had so deeply infiltrated his revolutionary
cell. His interrogator expressed smug satisfaction, and then informed him that such surveillance was commonplace, and that in
fact no one in the entire empire was more closely surveilled than the Tsar himself.
I've always operated under the assumption that the intelligence agencies devote ample resources to keeping the Executive under
close observation, and that he likely has no more secrets than the rest of us.
The difference now is that the agencies are not just monitoring executive goings-on, but becoming active political players.
Needless to say, clueless, hopeless Democrats are cheering them on.
Your title of "Empire In Decay" reminded me of my last two years at school (late 1980s) and the emphasis on Tudors and Stuarts,
Bourbons and Habsburgs in history classes. The school organised lectures from history professors like Henry Kamen and Paul Kennedy.
Kennedy had just written the book on the rise and fall of empires and been on the airwaves. Kamen is an expert on imperial Spain.
One rarely sees that sort of expertise in the MSM. We get the likes of McCain, Miss Lindsey, David Brooks, Bernard-Henri Levy,
Simon Schama (sic) et al masquerading as experts.
Paul Kennedy knew his stuff. Read his book back in the day, cover to cover. That is the level of state-craft these people are
thinking about. One dinky national election is mere detail. I am sure all the agencies have read the Club of Rome report and what
came after it. It isn't just Global Warming time. Chess end games, all the way down, until checkmate.
It's appalling, isn't. Just the same talking heads going around studios and obsessing over trivia and sound bites.
I remember the Sunday lunchtime and evening shows in the UK thirty years ago, featuring academics and journalists who had been
in a country for years and got to know the country well. The advent of 24 hour and international news seems to have destroyed
what was good coverage / analysis.
FWIW, one of my friends and also son of immigrants from a former French and British colony works at the UK mission to the EU.
He is a professional historian and studied at LSE and Cambridge. He hopes to return to Cambridge by the end of the decade and
teach, but will also write about how Brexit panned out from a ring side seat.
It would be great if Yves could get historians of the calibre of Kamen, Kennedy, Howard, Scarisbrick and Sauvigny to contribute.
Gore Vidal was telling the world about the National Security State years ago seemingly without any impact on the wider public
mindset.
Only when the legitimacy of leaders is seriously in question does this stuff pique the public interest. Isn't there something
called positive vetting? But then, there are no qualifications required for becoming a politician – seemingly every other job
nowadays needs a certificate but not that.
I'm just hoping that when I accidentally delete something important I can type a cry for help into Firefox and GCHQ will get
it all back for me.
If these things are true then there is little reason to think we aren't far, far beyond decay.. we are the festering maggot
laden puss spreading more toxic virulent dangers far and wide.
Little can explain those who circle the wagon in deference to, even in favor of the surveillance state unless they are afraid,
blackmailed etc.
Chaotic unpredictable Trump (who must be clean as a whistle to survive this long) may have grabbed this Shock Doctoring chaotic
beast by the tail. Will he be willing or able to bring it down? If so, he may be the greatest thing that's ever happened to this
country. He's already survived more than I ever dared imagine an individual could. I mean we have long been way past stay out
of any and all airplanes territory here.
The irony is just too rich a man in favor of ever increasing military, more torture, more drones just isn't enough for the
intel state.
A long while back a post Snowden revelation was that there exists a rule and mechanisms in the NSA to make sure that politicians
are put on a list that specifically excludes their communications from being vacuumed with everyone else's. To bypass the list
requires authorization at the highest levels in the agencies involved (and maybe even presidential authority). That is how Congress
protects itself and why it so easily gives all kinds of spying authorities to the agencies. This is not czarist Russia in other
words.
On whose authorities were the protections bypassed in the Trump case ? Comey has already come out to say he didn't do it. Devin
Nunes, the Chairman the House Intelligence committee seems to not have been informed of any surveillance op involving Trump so
the committees maybe out of the loop. This implies either CIA/NSA or GCHQ as I don't see Canada getting involved in it or NZ.
Was the flimflam Russian bs crapped out by GCHQ and CIA to gain such legal authorities and dredge opposition on Trump to prevent
his election or to soft coup him out ? That the Russian 'intel' came from an ex British spy seems suspicious.
The history of the FBI under Hoover makes me question your claim that members of Congress are exempt from surveillance. Are
we really supposed to believe that, the technology being what it is, the intelligence agencies would show such admirable self-restraint?
That's a bet I wouldn't take.
Yes I know and agree it would be foolish to rely on it. In practical terms they might do it anyway specially if safe in Obama's
approval, tacit or otherwise, but the rule exists anyway, if only to be a cudgel if the congress is feeling ornery. If I remember
correctly, it was discussed in Emptywheel's website in the context of the hacking of Angela Merkel.
Eureka Springs below mentions the senate hack. The hacking of the senate computers was a CIA screwup and the agencies don't
like to be in the spotlight that way but CIA seems to mind it less than the others. This is another reason I think CIA may be
behind the Trump tapp.
What strikes me is that this is NOT astounding, and should really come as no surprise. Think of the subterfuge and intrigue
back in the ancient empires of China, Greece, Rome. It's part of our human DNA. What cracks me up is the strength of the kool-aid
the innocence and starry-eyed conviction that we are exceptional. The concept of America spun in elementary school is indeed exceptional-
even exceptionally virtuous. But in fact, with our convenient lives, preoccupation with debt service and preoccupation with Dancing
with the Master Chefs, misdirection has kept us from the ugly reality that we are right in there amongst the best, if not the
most aggressive, in our dominant empire phase.
Think about the outrage when it was determined we were monitoring Merkle's phone. Empire in decline, indeed! Seems to me Homo
sapiens is really heading out toward the end of their dead branch on the tree of life: RIP Too much head, not enough heart.
A reason that I don't completely ignore Trump's claim (I do not like Trump!) is that it is beginning to look as if the entire
Obama Presidency had a few real primary objectives. Firstly was to protect Wall Street from any prosecution but one of the other
primary longterm goals was the TTP. Obama's desire to get the TTP through at any cost makes the act of listening in on Trump (who
said he would kill it) very plausible.
I believe that Cocomaan asked about a new Church committee in yesterday's comments. And the entire post above gives the reasons
why not. There is no one in Congress of the caliber of Frank Church. (Even if McCain has fantasies ) No one will take on a multinational
intelligence system, deliberately interlocked to avoid accountability. And when was the last congressional investigation that
produced results and legal proceedings?
The "Five Eyes" always remind me of V for Vendetta. (Which is not just a great graphic novel, but an unfolding prophecy.)
White-collar America, triumphant: Love means never having to say you're sorry.
I agree. Ron Wyden is perhaps the only one possible, but the fact that Clapper was never humiliated for lying to Congress shows
that we don't have anyone up to the task.
A nice interview and a good example of why I keep coming back to this blog. You don't get this kind of analysis anywhere else.
While all this infighting and spy vs. spy skulduggery goes on, one thing is for certain – the neo-cons and "deep state" are
too distracted by operation "take down the Donald" to pay much attention to their usual work.
The creation of failed states appears to be badly behind schedule now; Syria may actually be restored by the Russians and Iran
back to a functional state, and there appears to be a gutting of the State Department in progress which will make future "color
revolutions" difficult.
Is it any wonder there are so many powerful interests screaming that Russia "hacked" the election?
Having just read "Sleepwalkers" and the new Rasputin biography and reading how everyone of any note
in political circles was monitored in Europe and Russia over 100 years ago these modern revelations come as no surprise. In those
days they did it by opening mail, intercepting telegrams and having people followed 24 hours a day.
It reminded me of when the Chaplain was arrested by the CID men because Yossarian signed the chaplain's name or Washington
Irving's or Irving Washington's name as he censored soldiers letters home while staying in the hospital.
Thanks for this very important post. Nothing that Wilkerson said is a surprise – at all – to me. In fact, it's what I've figured
has been happening since well, at least since Hoover, as Wilkerson indicates.
As others have pointed out, though, this type of spying has gone on in many forms over the eons of time. None of it is new.
The only sort of newsworthy aspect of it is that people in positions of some power and knowledge of behind the scenes stuff, like
Wilkerson, are coming out and saying it.
I always figured, esp since the Snowden reveal, that ALL politicians of any major impact/level would be spied on – or at least
the data is gathered and available to be perused on an as needed basis.
I read somewhere that Trump allegedly was steamingly angry about this. I want to say: SO? What did you expect? THIS is the
way things work. Sometimes you're going like that Intel and sometimes you won't.
I'm not that convinced whether it makes a difference if there was an actual wire tap or the info was gathered by spy satellite
or some other method. But I could be wrong in that regard.
So it seems to me that Trump is naive, albeit I also get it that he's hitting out at his enemies and using his tool of choice:
twitter. So he makes his short tweets and expresses his anger against his enemies to shore up the defences of his supporters.
I can only hope that Trump was NOT naive enough to not realize that he wouldn't be spied on. Trump can hate Obama all he wants
– and I don't like Obama much either – but this kind of spying has be de rigueur for a long long time and no doubt, will continue
to be so for a long long time.
Will Trump be able to "tame" the Spooks? Good luck. JFK tried that, and we all witnessed how that turned out.
Thanks for this post. My guess is Wilkerson is right that intel agencies care most about their own turf and budgets. What's
interesting is, judging by the Chicken Little flailing after the election, imo the CIA and other agencies never saw a Trump win
coming, or really even possible. So, what are these agencies doing with all their big data? Did they simply use Google/Ada for
their election probabilities intel? /s
Sorry about length but I think this puts together some interesting info.
According to the BBC (from a Jan 13 report)
FISA warrants were issued:
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to
me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community.
He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I
had heard from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information
was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation
about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American
citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were
the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation,
there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency,
responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the
secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted
permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in
July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election
day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities
– in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United
States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were
the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said
one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request
for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry
Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight
people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders
of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff
attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.
RT: What do you make of the accusations made by Donald Trump? How big of a deal is this?
Larry Johnson: I think it's a huge deal. The problem is Trump probably should not have done this via Twitter because to
call it a "wiretap" is technically inaccurate. And the denials by the Obama people – like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning
of "is" is with respect to "was oral sex a sexual act."
In this case I understand from very good friends that what happened was both Jim Clapper and John Brennan at CIA were intimately
involved in trying to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump. That there was some collusion overseas with Britain's own GHCQ
[Government Communications Headquarters]. That information that was gathered from GHCQ was actually passed to John Brennan
and it was disseminated within the US government. This dissemination was illegal.
Donald Trump is in essence correct that the intelligence agencies, and some in the law enforcement community on the side
of the FBI, were in fact illegally trying to access, monitor his communications with his aides and with other people. All of
this with an end to try and destroy and discredit his presidency. I don't think there can be any doubt of that. I think it's
worth noting that the head of the National Security Agency, an Admiral [Michael] Rogers, made a journey to the Trump Tower
shortly after Trump had won. And in the immediate aftermath of his visit, Jim Clapper and others in the intelligence community
called
for him to be fired . Why did Rodgers go to Trump Tower? My understanding is that it was to cover himself, because he was
aware that the NSA authorities had been misused and abused with respect to Donald Trump.
Another piece of evidence that Wikerson alludes to (
March
1, 2017 ) :
The American media is ignoring a story from London about the abrupt resignation of Robert Hannigan, the head of Britain's
highly secretive Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which is the code breaking equivalent of the U.S. National
Security Agency (NSA). Hannigan's resignation on January 23 surprised everyone, with only a few hours' notice provided to his
staff. He claimed in a press release that he wanted to spend more time with his family, which reportedly includes a sick wife
and elderly parents. Given the abruptness of the decision, it seems likely to be a cover story.
Putting it altogether and there seems like a lot of smoke, will the MSM look for the fire?
If we ignore the noise that comes from all sides 24/7 we should ask ourselves what is the worst consequence of this election
cycle. I think that the fact that hatred became acceptable and normal is by far the worst. Will take a long time, if ever, to
heal that.
From the book The Damned Yard by Ivo Andric
The success with which the politicians were able to pursue their campaign of division and mutual antagonism depended to
a very large extend on the power of language to create a reality people are ready to believe in without reference to fact.
Introduction page viii
"It can happen, as you know," wrote Brother Mato, "that some of our people watching the Vizier destroy the Turks and their
"prominent people" would comment on how some good would come of it for the rayah, for our fools think that another's trouble
must do them good. You can tell them straight, so that they know now at least what they refused to see before: that nothing
will come of it. Page 11
Such was their capacity for hatred! And when the hatred of the bazaar attaches itself to an object, it never lets go, but
focuses increasingly on it, gradually altering its shape and meaning, superseding it completely and becoming an end in itself.
Then the object becomes secondary, only its name remains, and the hatred crystallizes, grows out of itself, according to its
own laws and needs, and becomes powerful, inventive and enthralling, like a kind of inverted love; it finds new fuel and impetus,
and itself creates motives for ever greater hatred. Page 19
Well this time Wilkerson did look upset. Just last week he looked tired but not so upset in his RNN interview. The topic this
time is of course Trump being tapped and Wilkerson clearly doesn't like it. But did anybody else notice that Wilkerson is wearing
the exact same clothes as in the most previous interview? And the time of day is very similar by the lighting behind him on the
ceiling and on his face as he speaks down into his computer. So that's odd. Because it indicates to me that they were getting
ready to debunk "Trump is crazy" talk even before Trump's claim hit the news. Or at least as soon as it did; they were ready with
this interview. I get the feeling they waited a few days to make it look spontaneous. Makes me think there is almost a civil war
going on. But regardless of these tactics, it's annoying that the DNC pulled this clumsy crap via the UK.
The nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded,
guilt by association conspiracy theory that OMG! the "Russians are coming with Trump" has been
okay for the past 9 month, now that the president is uncovering the deep state's assault on the Bill
of Rights conspiracy theories are an issue!
If Obama's Stalinist candidate had won it would be already be too late save America's liberty!
"... The threat from Russia is nothing compared to the attack on the Bill of Rights by the Obama Stalinists! Neocon hack Strobe Talbot who brought the neocon Kagans into Bill Clinton's State Dept to run Color Coupes and topple Yugoslavia. Estonia and Ukraine should be dismembered like Bill Clinton did Yugoslavia. Filled with malarkey from PNAC humbug tank nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded, guilt by association conspiracy theory up through here: ..."
"... Really! They "know" Putin [anything other than Clinton and the DLC's wretchedness to many people] cost the neolibs their entitlement to run their deep state power. ..."
"... That is where I stopped reading he "can", "could", "would", "assessments" [from the deep state spooks' neolib agendas] and "NATO is not obsolete" are the very fake news themes of the past 14 months of recently ended Clinton con! How could Putin contaminate the neoliberal permanent war crowd's anointed? Putin could NOT have as much power as the DLC crushing Bernie? ..."
The threat from Russia is nothing compared to the attack on the Bill of Rights by the Obama Stalinists! Neocon hack Strobe Talbot who brought the neocon Kagans into Bill Clinton's State Dept to run Color Coupes and topple Yugoslavia.
Estonia and Ukraine should be dismembered like Bill Clinton did Yugoslavia. Filled with malarkey from PNAC humbug tank nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded, guilt by association conspiracy theory up through
here:
"It is bad for Trump, since the ongoing revelations of a foreign adversary's contamination of an American election undermines
the outcome's validity."
Really! They "know" Putin [anything other than Clinton and the DLC's wretchedness to many people] cost the neolibs their entitlement
to run their deep state power.
That is where I stopped reading he "can", "could", "would", "assessments"
[from the deep state spooks' neolib agendas] and "NATO is not obsolete" are the very fake news themes of the past 14 months of
recently ended Clinton con! How could Putin contaminate the neoliberal permanent war crowd's anointed? Putin could NOT have as much power as the DLC crushing Bernie? Barry insists on linking teaching points about the 10 fallacies of logic spewing forth from alt left Trump assassins.
"... "The original pretext was that FISA warrants were obtained in October for some limited capacity of Trump surrogates," Barnes recalled. "The problem is FISA's a very limited law, especially if you are talking about U.S. citizens. If you're talking about foreigners, then the breadth of the law is very broad, and the president can, in fact, intercept and surveil foreign activities at a much wider degree because of a limited application of the Fourth Amendment – although the Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to understand the limits of the Constitution as to foreigners, but that's another story ." ..."
"... "So President Trump is correct that it appears that's what took place here, based on published reports, headlines in the New York Times that use the words 'intercepted calls' involving Trump advisers who are American citizens. It raises very serious issues, and he's absolutely right to raise them," Barnes said ..."
"... "I think that is problematic about Clapper in particular. He'd be the least likely guy you would want to put up as a credible source for the administration," Barnes replied. "But what he really also did at the same time was that he gutted the sort of defense that Obama could have had. Because here you have these stories that come out about intercepted calls, and Clapper goes on TV and says there's actually no legal grounds for any intercepted calls to be taking place, at least not through the FISA authority, which is exactly what was being cited as the reason it was done." ..."
"... "Actually, Clapper's answer raises even more questions. Either (a) Clapper's lying, which is always possible, or (b) Clapper is being truthful, which means all these intercepted calls were done entirely illegally and off the books, or (c) it was done through the Department of Justice in some entirely different manner that would put Obama right in the middle of it," he said. "In other words, if it wasn't done as some sort of national security matter, but was simply done in some sort of disguised investigation that was a politically motivated means of monitoring your adversaries," Barnes elaborated. "So he ended up opening more Pandora's Box than he closed it." ..."
"... "There were three different interpretations of Comey and Clapper combined coming out and saying that," he suggested. "One interpretation was that they were not being fully forthcoming and that it was a message to their underlings that they were not going to be the ones to take the fall if any such activity took place, and that those underlings could take Hillary-style actions in terms of whatever evidence may remain of that." ..."
"... "The second interpretation of what Clapper and Comey did is that they were both kept in the dark – that you had a sort of a rogue operation of people, including Sally Yates at the Department of Justice, who circumvented both Comey and Clapper in order to engage in this sort of illicit personal surveillance," he continued. ..."
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on Monday's Breitbart News
Daily to talk about President Trump's allegation that the Obama administration wiretapped him during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Barnes's latest article on the subject for
LawNewz
is entitled "Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance."
"The allegations that Trump raises are allegations that derive directly from what the newspapers have reported – the Guardian,
BBC, Heat Street, the New York Times, the Washington Post , where they all talk about there being an interagency
panel of people who were involved in an investigation, who purportedly requested and obtained various means of intercepting phone
calls," Barnes explained.
"So there have been competing stories, and on Sunday, they got even more complicated, as both Clapper and Comey denied any knowledge
of any wiretapping presence," he continued. "Their denials went a little further than Obama's himself, where all he said was that
he himself didn't personally order something – which was a rather absurd cop-out because the president doesn't directly order things
of that nature. His surrogates or delegates do."
"The issue goes right to: why, at any time, was anybody's phone calls being intercepted that were on the Trump team, that are
American citizens?" he said. "The various news stories that are out, including one by Andrew McCarthy, who
recounts
them for the National Review , there's just no legal grounds for any of that surveillance to be taking place. There's
no legal grounds for any of those calls to be intercepted."
"The original pretext was that FISA warrants were obtained in October for some limited capacity of Trump surrogates," Barnes
recalled. "The problem is FISA's a very limited law, especially if you are talking about U.S. citizens. If you're talking about foreigners,
then the breadth of the law is very broad, and the president can, in fact, intercept and surveil foreign activities at a much wider
degree because of a limited application of the Fourth Amendment – although the Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to understand the limits
of the Constitution as to foreigners, but
that's another story ."
"The issue he raises is critical and essential, and it's been ever since these stories started leaking out," he said of McCarthy's
writing. "Aside from the criminality of the leaks, it was that this is information that never should have been gathered in the first
place. What FISA requires is that if you're going to intercept a call where an American is on the line at any level, then what you
have to do is you have to go through certain protocols, and you have to establish basically probable cause that the person is involved
in criminal conduct of some sort. Just the fact that I, as a U.S. citizen, am talking to a foreigner does not allow magically the
Fourth Amendment to disappear as to my right to privacy."
"And yet, purportedly, that's what effectively took place here because here you had Sally Yates discussing a transcript of a call
that involved former NSA assistant Michael Flynn, and that's information that never should have been in her possession or custody,"
he observed.
"Just because one of the people on the phone call may have been not a U.S. citizen, that's no legal grounds to intercept
an American's communications. Another way to think of it is, sometimes you'll see in the movies where the guy is sitting in a van,
and he's listening in on a phone conversation on a wiretap, and the person he's listening to shifts to some personal conversation,
maybe of an intimate nature, that has nothing to do with the criminal investigation going on. You'll see him turn off the recording
device and put down his headphones," he explained.
"If it happens that the manner and method of interception was something that you couldn't physically do that, then what you're
supposed to do is to scrub the information and delete it from the record. In fact, an ex-CIA officer wrote an article for
American Conservative documenting that
that was always the protocol and procedure, whenever they were involved in an intelligence-gathering investigation. Yet apparently
here , according to published reports, what they actually did is they went and they not only kept the information, didn't
scrub it or delete it, they deliberately went back and saved it, and then shared it with a bunch of other people who had no authority
to ever look at it," said Barnes.
"FISA is very particular about this," he noted. "It requires protection of any innocent American's information that ever may be
gathered through this process. You have to not only scrub it and delete it; you cannot disseminate it to people. You can't identify
the individual that's being sourced in the investigation. And the failure to follow FISA's strict procedures is actually a crime.
FISA section 1809 of Title 50 makes it a criminal penalty to either gather the information outside of FISA's procedures or to disseminate
it outside of FISA's procedures."
"So President Trump is correct that it appears that's what took place here, based on published reports, headlines in the
New York Times that use the words 'intercepted calls' involving Trump advisers who are American citizens. It raises very serious
issues, and he's absolutely right to raise them," Barnes said.
SiriusXM host Alex Marlow noted that President Obama's
denial of Trump's wiretapping accusation was "thin." "It clearly leads to many more questions than it answers," Marlow said.
"Oh, absolutely," Barnes agreed. "There's different parts of it that are problematic. The first thing is that if he was being serious
about a denial, you simply issue a two-sentence statement. You say, 'I am not aware of any wiretapping that took place on Mr. Trump
or his campaign, and I would not have supported such a wiretap had it occurred.' He could have been very broad. It's interesting
that Comey and Clapper were much more specific and particular than Obama was."
"The second aspect where there were some ludicrous claims included therein, such as the White House never engaging in electronic
surveillance of a United States citizen," he continued. "Well, as Andrew McCarthy and other attorneys have pointed out, and other
people familiar with the national security operation have pointed out, Obama drone-bombed American citizens in various foreign locations
around the world while he was president, including one in Yemen quite prominently. There's no way you can actually do that without
some form of surveillance on the individuals. It's not like you had a global map tattooed on the wall, and you took a dart and threw
it at the map, and said, 'Oh, okay, we'll drone-bomb there.'"
"The fact that he didn't deny the existence of the wiretap, did not deny his awareness of it, did not deny his approval of it,
and then made clearly materially false or misleading statements about his engagement and involvement with surveillance of American
citizens – and this coming on top of Clapper committing perjury previously before Congress that led to Ed Snowden becoming Ed Snowden
I mean, Ed Snowden probably never becomes Ed Snowden if Clapper doesn't commit perjury, and then, Obama's reaction to Clapper's perjury
was to promote him, rather than to demote him, about spying on American citizens," said Barnes.
After playing a recording of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper flatly denying the existence of any FISA court
order relating to Trump Tower, Marlow asked, "Do we care what this guy says? He's a known liar."
"I think that is problematic about Clapper in particular. He'd be the least likely guy you would want to put up as a credible
source for the administration," Barnes replied. "But what he really also did at the same time was that he gutted the sort of defense
that Obama could have had. Because here you have these stories that come out about intercepted calls, and Clapper goes on TV and
says there's actually no legal grounds for any intercepted calls to be taking place, at least not through the FISA authority, which
is exactly what was being cited as the reason it was done."
"Actually, Clapper's answer raises even more questions. Either (a) Clapper's lying, which is always possible, or (b) Clapper
is being truthful, which means all these intercepted calls were done entirely illegally and off the books, or (c) it was done through
the Department of Justice in some entirely different manner that would put Obama right in the middle of it," he said. "In other words,
if it wasn't done as some sort of national security matter, but was simply done in some sort of disguised investigation that was
a politically motivated means of monitoring your adversaries," Barnes elaborated. "So he ended up opening more Pandora's Box than
he closed it."
Marlow played an excerpt from an
interview
given by former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in which he essentially said President Trump's accusation
that President Obama directly ordered surveillance on Trump Tower might be "incorrect" in the details, but Trump was "right" to believe
a surveillance operation could have been in progress.
Barnes said Mukasey did "accurately relay what has been reported to the press, which is this request for a FISA warrant in the
summer that was rejected because it put Trump's name in the warrant request."
"To give you an idea of how rare that is, if that did occur, is that the last 35,000-plus requests for the FISA court to issue
a warrant, it's only been denied 12 prior times, to public knowledge," he noted.
"According to the published reports, they went back in October and simply left Trump's name off of it, slightly limited it, and
got it," he said of the FISA request in question. "Now, Clapper's statement completely denies that ever occurred in terms of October,
in terms of ever getting any FISA warrant on anybody connected to, in his own words, the Trump campaign. So there's a major discrepancy
present."
"Secondly, the one area where he doesn't quite correctly describe the situation: there is some misleading information out there
that the government can just tap the phones of anyone involved who's working on any level on behalf of a foreign government, by any
means. Well, if that had been the case, everybody at the Clinton Foundation should have been tapped permanently," Barnes said. "Putting
that aside, the actual law requires that they not only be, quote, 'an agent of a foreign power,' but if they're a United States person,
there has to be evidence that they're engaged in criminal activities of a particular kind."
"So they couldn't just wiretap Michael Flynn, for example, or listen in on his conversations, even if the person on the other
line is not a United States person. They have to have evidence that he was engaged in criminal conduct. That is what was problematic,
as soon as the Flynn story broke, was there was no grounds for them to have ever recorded him, kept the recording, or shared the
recording. FISA law specifically prohibited it under those set of circumstances," he explained.
"That's the illegal aspect of what's going on. It's not just the political motivation that would be impermissible or inappropriate
because it would be First Amendment punitive use, misuse of the search warrant authority. But it actually violates what warrant authority
they could ever obtain in the first place, under both the First and Fourth Amendments, and under the FISA law itself," he said.
Barnes said the
reported request from FBI Director James Comey for the Justice Department to refute Trump's wiretapping accusation was "an interesting
set of statements."
"There were three different interpretations of Comey and Clapper combined coming out and saying that," he suggested. "One interpretation
was that they were not being fully forthcoming and that it was a message to their underlings that they were not going to be the ones
to take the fall if any such activity took place, and that those underlings could take Hillary-style actions in terms of whatever
evidence may remain of that."
"One little-noted story last week was that Trump put out a requirement that everybody connected to the story keep all information,"
he noted. "He did this before he did his tweets, but his motivation may have been to actually prove and document this illicit activity
took place."
"The second interpretation of what Clapper and Comey did is that they were both kept in the dark – that you had a sort of a rogue
operation of people, including Sally Yates at the Department of Justice, who circumvented both Comey and Clapper in order to engage
in this sort of illicit personal surveillance," he continued.
"I've been on the opposite side of Sally Yates in cases where she was at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta," Barnes revealed.
"If you were going to pick an unethical, corrupt prosecutor, she'd be at the top of the list. She tried to help railroad a family
there, in a case I dealt with over ten years."
"The third possibility is that this was just unlawful surveillance," he concluded. "I've had a lot of cases like that, especially
under the Obama administration. It became too frequent and too regular that you had agents that were just doing illegal surveillance,
without ever notifying their supervisors, without ever obtaining judicial authority, without ever doing it legally at all. And so
you may have had an operation that was a true Deep State kind of operation, that was just doing unlawful surveillance."
"There's too much information, like some of the criticism of President Trump. Well, people should be critical then of the New
York Times because it was their story that said there was intercepted calls of multiple members of Donald Trump's campaign. That
was, I think, the story that ran on Valentine's Day, actually. It was in the very first sentence of the story. So either the New
York Times was purely fake news or somebody in the government is lying about what they were up to," Barnes summarized.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files." ..."
"... FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever. ..."
"... So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. ..."
Did the surveillance state just take another gigantic Big Brotherish step forward? The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting
that the
Obama
administration is planning to support an FBI plan for "a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to
wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services."
Facebook posts, Skype calls, Google chats, Apple's iMessage - under the new plan, every form of Internet communication would have
to be accessible to law enforcement wiretapping. Civil libertarians, Internet companies and privacy activists are all understandably
unenthused. A blogger at FireDogLake immediately labeled the news proof that Obama intended to support the
"end of the 4th Amendment on the Internet."
That's a little overheated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, chiefly by requiring that search
warrants be authorized by a judge and supported by probable cause. According to all descriptions of the new FBI wiretapping plan,
if law enforcement wants to listen in on your Facebook chats or Apple iMessages, law enforcement will have to get a court order,
just at it would if it wants to wiretap your phone. If society is going to grant government the right to listen in to our old-school
phone conversations, it's hard to see how, in principle, it can deny the same right with regard to our Skype calls.
The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with
a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama
administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that,
according
to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review
Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files."
Now we're talking violation of the Fourth Amendment. And if we combine that kind of cavalier attitude toward our constitutionally
mandated protections with vastly expanded technical surveillance capabilities, then we've got a real problem. Civil libertarians
have a right to be nervous. Expanded power implies expanded opportunities to abuse that power.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls
the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities
have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more
data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval.
One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever.
So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government
that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers.
Yippee.
Andrew Leonard
is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.
"... "I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. ..."
"... Binney also told Sean Hannity's radio show earlier Monday, "I think the FISA court's basically totally irrelevant." The judges on the FISA court are "not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection," Binney said during the radio interview. "That's all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress." ..."
"... Binney also told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction are " simply out there for show" and "trying to show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts." ..."
"... "I think that's what happened here," Binney told Fox. " The evidence of the conversation of the president of the U.S., President Trump, and the [prime minister] of Australia and the president of Mexico. Releasing those conversations. Those are conversations that are picked up by the FAIRVIEW program, primarily, by NSA ." ..."
As we noted previously, Binney is the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information,
who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely
regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control
structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet
Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian
atomic weapons"). Binney is the real McCoy.
Binney resigned from NSA shortly after the U.S. approach to intelligence changed following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He "became
a whistleblower after discovering that elements of a data-monitoring program he had helped develop -- nicknamed ThinThread -- were
being used to spy on Americans," PBS reported.
On Monday he came to the defense of the president , whose allegations on social media over the weekend that outgoing President
Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 campaign have rankled Washington.
"I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill
Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business
on Monday.
Everyone's conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.
Binney also told Sean Hannity's radio show earlier Monday, "I think the FISA court's basically totally irrelevant." The judges
on the FISA court are "not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection," Binney said
during the radio interview. "That's all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress."
Binney also told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction are " simply out there for show" and "trying to
show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and
the courts."
"That's not the main collection program for NSA," Binney said.
* * *
What Binney did not delve into, however, was if Obama directed surveillance on Trump for political purposes during the campaign,
a core accusation of Trump's. But Binney did say events such as publication of details of private calls between President Trump and
the Australian prime minister, as well as with the Mexican president, are evidence the intelligence community is playing hardball
with the White House.
"I think that's what happened here," Binney told Fox. " The evidence of the conversation of the president of the U.S., President
Trump, and the [prime minister] of Australia and the president of Mexico. Releasing those conversations. Those are conversations
that are picked up by the FAIRVIEW program, primarily, by NSA ."
Since Binney designed the NSA's electronic surveillance system, he would know.
"... When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." ..."
"... To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn." ..."
"... In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations. ..."
"... But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to the Washington Post . ..."
"... The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career. ..."
"... But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved. ..."
"... Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
"... and the author of the book ..."
"... What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates. ..."
"... They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail. Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy. ..."
When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred
his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."
To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real
defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried
out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn."
And what were Flynn's offenses?
In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador.
He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few
weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations.
"That's neither illegal nor improper," writes Lake. Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that there
would be no reciprocal expulsions and U.S. diplomats and their families would be welcome at the Kremlin's
Christmas and New Year's parties. Diplomatic crisis averted. "Great move (by V. Putin)," tweeted
Trump, "I always knew he was very smart."
But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told
a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador,
a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents
leaked to the Washington Post .
After seeing the transcript, the White House concluded that Flynn had misled Pence, mutual trust
was gone, and Flynn must go. Like a good soldier, Flynn took the bullet.
The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with
a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal
conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak
it to press collaborators to destroy a political career.
"This is what police states do," writes Lake.
But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President
Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.
For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.
Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware, and Virginia
coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan's
INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.
Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it
appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has
made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea."
Is the White House serious?
Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving
East Jerusalem back to Jordan.
How does the deep state go about its work? We have seen a classic example with Flynn. The intelligence
and investigative arms of the regime dig up dirt, and then move it to their Fourth Estate collaborators,
who enjoy First Amendment immunity to get it out.
For violating their oaths and breaking the law, bureaucratic saboteurs are hailed as "whistleblowers"
while the journalists who receive the fruits of their felonies put in for Pulitzers.
Now if Russians hacked into the DNC and John Podesta's computer during the campaign, and, more
seriously, if Trump aides colluded in any such scheme, it should be investigated.
But we should not stop there. Those in the FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies
who were complicit in a conspiracy to leak the contents of Flynn's private conversations in order
to bring down the national-security advisor should be exposed and prosecuted.
An independent counsel should be appointed by the attorney general and a grand jury impaneled
to investigate what Trump himself rightly calls "criminal" misconduct in the security agencies.
As for interfering in elections, how clean are our hands?
Our own CIA has a storied history of interfering in elections. In the late '40s, we shoveled cash
into France and Italy after World War II to defeat the communists who had been part of the wartime
resistance to the Nazis and fascists.
And we succeeded. But we continued these practices after the Cold War ended. In this century,
our National Endowment for Democracy, which dates to the Reagan era, has backed "color revolutions"
and "regime change" in nations across what Russia regards as her "near abroad."
NED's continued existence appears a contradiction of Trump's inaugural declaration: "We do not
seek to impose our way of life on anyone."
The president and GOP should get out front here. Let Congress investigate Russia meddling in our
election. And let a special prosecutor run down, root out, expose, and indict those in the investigative
and intel agencies who used their custody of America's secrets, in collusion with press collaborators,
to take down Trump appointees who are on their enemies lists.
Hi – I agree with all you say. As an Australian citizen, I am outraged that the conversation between
my Prime Minister and your President was leaked. This leak occurred from within the White House.
There were reportedly four people from the Donald Trump admin who were on line. So yes, deep state
boogey stuff is sexy, who among the reported President's team – Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, Michael
Flynn or God forbid the president himself leaked? No deep state involvement in a call with the
only ally that has fought all wars with the USA since WW2 right?
"The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state "
Mr. Buchanan could have written this in his piece "Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
published just a few short months ago in reference to leaks from the FBI. In that case, for Buchanan,
"the people have a right to know." Seems like a double standard to me.
Seems like he is just a partisan as politicians who complained about the FBI leaks.
With regard to making leaks public, I think Buchanan's comments about Hillary are as true for
Trump. "Indeed, it would seem imperative that FBI Director James Comey, even if it violates protocol
and costs him his job, state publicly whether what Baier's FBI sources are telling him is false
or true."
I personally think that if Trump has conflicts of interest and can be subject to Russian pressure,
the public deserves to know. And as Buchanan suggests, the leakers should take the consequences.
Why did Trump not chose transparency and release his Tax Returns and why did he not choose the
public's interest and divest himself of his business holdings?
What the sniping comments here ignore is context. This is not about just matters of correct process
and form - to which it is easy to respond sarcastically to the Trump objections: it's about starting
or stopping Cold War II. And let's not forget, Cold War II increases the dangers of the hot kind,
which could be quite unpleasant.
One correction. It is not just about Putin's government, as Mr. Buchanan states. Despite fond
dreams inside NED, no conceivable Russian government will 'give back' Crimea - that is, short
of WWIII - or, as an outside possibility, the establishment of a neutral zone after the dissolution
of NATO and the reordering of the international system.
Ben Stone, Seriously? Boy, you lived in a whole different country 4 months ago than I did.
What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any
regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates.
They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then
they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent
peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail.
Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency
that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight
on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the
record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise
these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries
and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy.
Seriously, I didn't vote for the guy, but Trump is not the one we need to worry about when
it comes to taking away our liberty. If a President can be brought to heel through tactics like
this by unelected bureaucrats then we officially live in a police state.
You make a category error. Hillary Clinton was not an sitting President at the times those
leaks were made. Donald Trump is. That makes a very real difference. If you leaked information
about a vice president of the company that employed you in an attempt to get him fired and embarrass
your CEO, then you should be fired for insubordination.
The media and Deep State's obsession with Russia, and desire to fan the flames of war with Russia,
is truly mystifying and terrifying. Why are they so obsessed with Russia, and acting as if Russia
were still an enemy and we were still in the midst of the Cold War?
We have more in common with Russia than not, and should work together to promote common interests,
particularly in combating ISIS and radical Islam. Russia and Eastern Europe in general are also
at the forefront of fighting against the US & Western European liberal monoculture consensus that
dominates US & EU media and policy-making elites. On Russia policy Trump's instincts are right,
but I fear the Deep State and some of his own advisors are doing their best to undermine those
instincts and promote conflict. How else could one make sense of Spicer's idiotic comment the
other day that the President expects Russia to give back the Crimea? One can make an historical
case that not only the Crimea but all of the Ukraine should be part of Russia, but that is not
our problem and we need to stay out of it and focus on areas of agreement where we can make common
cause with Russia.
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital – just two miles away from the White
House – into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.
Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through
his impeachment.
And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot,
$5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.
***
According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.
'No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,' said the source.
'He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn't have any choice if he wanted
to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie's political wisdom and advice.'
***
'He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart's content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive
achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.' says the insider.
If true, would this be the first time in U.S. history that a former president has tried to topple his successor?
'Parallel construction' when building a LE case, Google it if you want to know what the FISA court is really all about. .....
The phone taps are there and used all of the time and the FISA is the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card for all the agencies listening
in to your phone conversations. ..........
When legal details count, .......FISA is there..........to rubber stamp your bad, bad, bad LEO behavior.
Live Hard, Killary Might Be Throwing Barry Under The Moving Prison Bus Along With His Consular, Die Free
The peaceful transition of power has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of America's system of government. Obama and Valerie
Jarret hate the United States and are trying to end the system of government we have. They and their operatives should be charged
and tried for sedition.
Maybe he can be the 1st guest on Killary's new TV show. They can give each other handjobs under the desk while telling the
person watching how evil everyone else is.
"... With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY. ..."
"... Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.' ..."
Back in 2013, Fox News journalist, James Rosen, was named a 'criminal co-conspirator' and 'flight
risk' by then AG Holder -- which led to a series of events that made
Holden later regret doing it . With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all
of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including
his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a piece on the ordeal, saying "The Rosen affair is as
flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush's administration, and it
uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a
reporter as a criminal for doing his job - seeking out information the government doesn't want made
public - deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights
are based."
Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of
the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.'
"... He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing. ..."
"I hope he cleans fucking house and outs every last shit politician for every last little thing
they are probably already being blackmailed on"
He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He
is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning
curve is way to steep and he is losing.
I hate to say this but we are gonna see a sad end to this
administration. Trump should be dropping any and every bomb he has but he isn't. By the time he
figures out what to do it will be too late. I think it might be already. He expects the American
people to stand behind and we are but that is not enough. I think it may be that time... that
time we all fear would come and will show us the real America and Americans.
Trump, if you read ZH, and you read this, drop everything NOW. DROP EVERY BOMB YOU HAVE. ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree. By now Trump has enough pix and AV to crush the firebugs in public. And if the Deep State and their psychotic friends in the CIA NSA FBI, etc., want to take it
outside, Trump should unleash what good Intel forces are left and go Roman on them.
Since the pervert Dems and their psycho alphabetroid friends are hell bent on destroying this
country if they can't keep it in the swamp, then they may as well take a real beat down in the
process.
The one good thing about all this is that it is forcing all the DC sleaze out in the open where
we can all see them for the power abusers they are.
Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on
instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution"
against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons
to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs
to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that
neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
Notable quotes:
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
"... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
"... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
"... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
"... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
"... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
"... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
"... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
"... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
"... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
"... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
"... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
"... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
"... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation
of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.
The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means
a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is
one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the
divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have
now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will
stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist
alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational
textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their
profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists
want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control
the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't
even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen
soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war
and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants
power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed
their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we
doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not
been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.
Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never
invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's
something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.
... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval
Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews
needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.
Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top
aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters,
William Safire, and then added:
"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"
Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart.
They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...
The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on
Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention,
has been the how.
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation
picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence
agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.
We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.
Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the
existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.
But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is
acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information
about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.
The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent
resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance
empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good
thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the
calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.
But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi!
It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules
At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and
its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into
the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five
different categories of foreign intelligence.
For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would
be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and
his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures
for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.
In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The
first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador
knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.
The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior
intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there
was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.
(Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)
But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused
of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the
FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself.
But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy
way of saying "unredacted."
The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent
of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under
Title III of the U.S. code.
It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence
questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which,
during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about
them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January
16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further
calls when Trump was President.
At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well
as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty
that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.
For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient
national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing
so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.
But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days
after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped
his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn
untruth.)
Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did
not match what Flynn insisted he said.
McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not.
But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about
the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for
weeks.
Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness
from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals.
The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.
"... The biggest complaint of the "left" is that Obama could be handing over the surveillance state to someone truly bad like Trump. That was the complaint of libertarians like Edward Snowden. But the moderate establishment types didn't care. They were too busy slandering Wikileaks. ..."
"... There is no evidence so support any of the months of "the Russians coming" screed; there is immense evidence in that screed that the GOP was tapped! To listen on a US citizen who is not an object of investigation is covered by the 4th Amendment etc. If they recorded a call from a Russian diplomat to someone not in an order from that special judge the tape should be sealed. It appears no taps were done legally and none of the illegal taps were kept from becoming innuendo in congressional hearings. The coincidental collection is an assault on US Bill of Rights! In many years in the pentagon bureaucracy I have NEVER seen coincidence where malice could be implied. ..."
"... This fake news hysteria over "Russian contacts" might well be a smoke screen explicitly designed to cover illegal wiretapping. They never expected Trump to be elected (neither did I ) and made some major mistakes hoping the Hillary will cover everything up. ..."
"... That actually might help to explain strange behavior of James Clapper. As if he felt that he is sitting on a hot stove. ..."
"Donald Trump Claims Barack Obama Ordered Wire Tap On Trump Tower Before Election"
'But he offered no evidence to back up the claims'
By Lee Moran...03/04/2017...07:16 am ET...Updated 1 hour ago
"President Donald Trump has accused former President Barack Obama of "wire tapping" Trump Tower
before the 2016 presidential election.
Trump made the claims in a series of tweets that he posted early Saturday, although he offered
no evidence to back his allegations up ― and a former adviser to Obama pointed out that presidents
cannot order wiretaps.
"Terrible!" Trump wrote at 6.35 a.m. E.T. "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in
Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
I'd have to go with PGL. You'd think if they were going to tap a Presidential candidate, they'd
have to get Presidential authority.
We just don't know. Probably they'd have to get a judge to sign off on it but the FISA court
is pretty much rubber stamp.
When is the last time the NSA or FBI go in trouble for overstepping their bounds? Never. If
they had flimsy reasons to tap Trump it's probably still legal strictly speaking.
Maybe Trump will reform the way the spies spy on private citizens?
HAHAHAHAA
The biggest complaint of the "left" is that Obama could be handing over the surveillance state
to someone truly bad like Trump. That was the complaint of libertarians like Edward Snowden.
But the moderate establishment types didn't care. They were too busy slandering Wikileaks.
There is no evidence so support any of the months of "the Russians coming" screed; there is immense
evidence in that screed that the GOP was tapped! To listen on a US citizen who is not an object of investigation is covered by the 4th Amendment
etc. If they recorded a call from a Russian diplomat to someone not in an order from that special
judge the tape should be sealed. It appears no taps were done legally and none of the illegal taps were kept from becoming innuendo
in congressional hearings. The coincidental collection is an assault on US Bill of Rights! In many years in the pentagon bureaucracy I have NEVER seen coincidence where malice could
be implied.
This fake news hysteria over "Russian contacts" might well be a smoke screen explicitly designed
to cover illegal wiretapping. They never expected Trump to be elected (neither did I ) and made some major mistakes hoping
the Hillary will cover everything up.
"... Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis to the charge. ..."
"... "We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health." ..."
Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, has
issued the following statement after President Trump accused former President Obama of wiretapping
his phones in 2016 and Obama's spokesman said that was false.
Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand
to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public
at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally
tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the
president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis
to the charge.
"The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic
requires deserve more information.
If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either
with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization.
If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It
is possible that he was illegally tapped.
On the other hand , if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application for surveillance
exists that the Court found credible.
The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives
or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the U.S. Senate.
Sasses then concludes:
"We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations
today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth,
rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and
health."
It appears that the Trump admin may already be working on Sasse's recommendations: as
the NYT reports ,
" a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president's
chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document
issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his
associates. The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such a document exists; any
such move by a White House counsel would be viewed at the Justice Department as a stunning case of
interference ."
Alternatively, it would be viewed as a case president seeking to determine if his predecessor
was actively plotting to interfere with the election via wiretapping, also a quite "stunning" case.
Former President Obama on Saturday denied President Trump's accusation that Obama had Trump Tower
phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.
"Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.
Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.
Trump made the claim in a series of early Saturday morning tweets that included the suggestion
that the alleged wiretapping was tantamount to "McCarthyism" and "Nixon/Watergate."
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory.
Nothing found. This is McCarthyism," Trump tweeted.
"Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election?
Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!" he said in another tweet.
Trump also tweeted that a "good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama
was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
"How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process.
This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!" the president continued.
Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration's alleged wiretapping.
However, he could be referencing a
Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the administration made two Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server
in Trump Tower, related to possible links with Russian banks.
No evidence was found.
The article was based on a segment by radio host Mark Levin.
However, the timelines for each seems to draw from a range of news reports over the last several
months, including those from The New York Times and Heat Street.
Lewis also said Saturday: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House
official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."
wouldsmash
REOPEN CLINTON EMAIL SERVER INVESTIGATION
encorezzzzzzz
GOP lawmaker calls to investigate Obama's $418 million arms deal with Kenya.
Fox News reported: A North Carolina congressman is calling for a probe into a potential $418
million contract between Kenya and a major U.S. defense contractor announced on President Obama's
last day in office -- a deal the lawmaker claims reeks of cronyism. Republican Rep. Ted Budd wants
the Government Accountability Office to investigate a deal between the African nation and New
York-based L3 Technologies for the sale of 12 weaponized border patrol planes.
He said he wants to know why a veteran-owned small company in North Carolina – which specializes
in making such planes – was not considered as the manufacturer. IOMAX USA Inc., based in Mooresville
and founded by a U.S. Army veteran, offered to build Kenya the weaponized planes for roughly $281
million – far cheaper than what its competitor, L3, is selling them for.
"Something smells wrong here," Budd told Fox News. "The U.S. Air Force bypassed IOMAX, which
has 50 of these planes already in service in the Middle East." "They were given a raw deal," Budd
said of Kenya, which had requested from the U.S. 12 weaponized planes in its fight against terrorist
group Al-Shabaab near its northern border. "We want to treat our allies like Kenya fairly," he
said. "And we want to know why IOMAX was not considered."
ricochetdog
"Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme.
Andrewmag16
Why are democrats always meeting and dealing with us and then act like its bad if anyone else
speaks to Russians?
evolutionmyths
Coming from an ... that never spoke any kind of truth . If he said false it means True
SheSayEh
Obama was community organizer of Chicago. Look at the mess he left behind there.
MrChainBlueLightning
The so called United States experiment should end. It was ultimately a failure. Red and Blue
states should merge and form their own countries.
CLUTCHCARGO1
DON'T STOP INVESTIGATING. OBAMA NEEDS TO MEET INMATE BUBBA
wouldsmash
Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL
MickeyQBitskoIII
Soros would certainly have it done, and Obama and Hillary would be in on whatever "intel" is
gathered, but there is NO WAY Soros would allow his favorite Kenyan lap dog to be directly involved
in the operation.
frdm399
Tucker Carlson exposed Politifact, New York Times, and Washington Post fact checkers as liars
last night. You just can't believe anything a democRAT says...
jconnelly
The US Govt was spying on Trump during the election. The Russians were spying on Clinton during
the election. Which is worse?
Funny now Obama and Clinton need to be afraid the Trump will wiretap them ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath ..."
"... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation. ..."
"... I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it. ..."
"... Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower ..."
Following Trump's stunning allegation that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower in October of 2016, prior
to the presidential election, which may or may not have been
sourced from a Breitbart story , numerous Democrats and media pundits have come out with scathing
accusations that Trump is either mentally disturbed, or simply has no idea what he is talking about.
The best example of this came from Ben Rhodes, a former senior adviser to President Obama in his
role as deputy National Security Advisor, who slammed Trump's accusation, insisting that " No President
can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you."
He also said "only a liar" could make the case, as Trump suggested, that Obama wire tapped Trump
Tower ahead of the election.
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from
people like you. https://t.co/lEVscjkzSw
It would appear, however, that Rhodes is wrong, especially as pertains to matters of Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance, and its associated FISA court, under which the alleged wiretap of Donald Trump would
have been granted, as it pertained specifically to Trump's alleged illicit interactions with Russian
entities.
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance
without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the
Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at- (i) the acquisition of the contents of
communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers,
as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical
intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under
the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)
of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any
communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition
of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports
such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date,
unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately
of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
While (B) seems to contradict the underlying permissive nature of Section 1802 as it involves
a United States person, what the Snowden affair has demonstrated all too clearly, is how frequently
the NSA and FISA court would make US citizens collateral damage. To be sure, many pointed out the
fact that Fox News correspondent
James Rosen was notoriously wiretapped in 2013 when the DOJ was investigating government leaks.
The
Associated Press was also infamously wiretapped in relation to the same investigation.
As pertains to Trump, the
Guardian reported as much in early January, when news of the alleged anti-Trump dossier by former
UK spy Chris Steele broke in January:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance
(Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular
contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence
investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant
in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full
investigation.
Furthermore, while most Democrats - not to
mention former president Obama himself - have been harshly critical of Trump's comments, some
such as former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau was quite clear in his warning to reporters that Obama
did not say there was no wiretapping, effectively confirming it:
I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that
neither he nor the WH ordered it.
Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely
that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower, only
that Obama himself and the Obama White House did not approve them if they did exist.
The Obama statement does not say there was no federal wire tapping of Trump Tower. It only says
Obama and White House didn't order it.
Further implying the existence of such a wiretap was David Axelrod, who tweeted today that that
such a wiretap could exist but would have "been OK'ed only for a a reason."
If there were the wiretap @realDonaldTrump
loudly alleges, such an extraordinary warrant would only have been OKed by a court for a reason.
Yet ironically, it was none other than the Trump administration which just earlier this week announced
it supports the renewal of spy law which incorporates the FISA court,
without
reforms :
"the Trump administration does not want to reform an internet surveillance law to address
privacy concerns, a White House official told Reuters on Wednesday, saying it is needed to protect
national security. The announcement could put President Donald Trump on a collision course with Congress,
where some Republicans and Democrats have advocated curtailing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, or FISA, parts of which are due to expire at the end of the year."
"We support the clean reauthorization and the administration believes it's necessary to protect
the security of the nation," the official said on condition of anonymity.
The FISA law has been criticized by privacy and civil liberties advocates as allowing broad, intrusive
spying. It gained renewed attention following the 2013 disclosures by former National Security Agency
contractor Edward Snowden that the agency carried out widespread monitoring of emails and other electronic
communications.
In any event, the bottom line here appears to be that with his tweet, Trump has opened a can of
worms with two possible outcomes: either the wiretaps exist as Trump has suggested, and the president
will use them to attack both the Obama administration and the media for political overreach; or,
there were no wiretaps,
which as Matthew Boyle writes , would suggest the previous administration had no reason to suspect
Trump colluded with a foreign government.
Senator Ben Sasse said as much in his statement issued earlier today:
The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic
requires deserve more information. If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization
or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization. If without,
the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that
he was illegally tapped. On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application
for surveillance exists that the Court found credible.
But what is perhaps most important, is that we may know soon enough. As the
NYT reported on Saturday afternoon , a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn
II, the president's chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official
described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance
of Mr. Trump and his associates.
If and when such a document is made public - assuming it exists of course - it would be Trump,
once again, that gets the last laugh.
"... The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump's assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump's phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement. ..."
"... The White House showed no indication that it would back down from Mr. Trump's claims. On Sunday, the president demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama had abused the power of federal law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election. In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called "reports" about the wiretapping "very troubling" and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia's meddling in the election. ..."
"... Mr. Comey's behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to. ..."
"... In his demand for a congressional inquiry, the president, through his press secretary, Sean Spicer, issued a statement on Sunday that said, "President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016." ..."
"... Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, "Not to my knowledge, no. ..."
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to
publicly reject President Trump's assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr.
Trump's phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged
claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter,
has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates
that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice
Department, also declined to comment.
Mr. Comey's request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation's top law
enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump's truthfulness. The confrontation between
the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump's weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores
the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of
a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump's young administration.
The White House showed no indication that it would back down from Mr. Trump's claims. On Sunday,
the president demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama had abused the power of federal
law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election. In a statement from his spokesman,
Mr. Trump called "reports" about the wiretapping "very troubling" and said that Congress should examine
them as part of its investigations into Russia's meddling in the election.
Along with concerns about potential attacks on the bureau's credibility, senior F.B.I. officials
are said to be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public's expectations
that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the Trump campaign in colluding
with Russia's efforts to disrupt the presidential election.
One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at
the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation
into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey's behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last
year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department
entreaties not to.
It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue the statement himself. He is the most senior law enforcement
official who was kept on the job as the Obama administration gave way to the Trump administration.
And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants, the F.B.I. keeps its
own set of records and is in position to know whether Mr. Trump's claims are true. While intelligence
officials do not normally discuss the existence or nonexistence of surveillance warrants, no law
prevents Mr. Comey from issuing the statement.
In his demand for a congressional inquiry, the president, through his press secretary, Sean
Spicer, issued a statement on Sunday that said, "President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as
part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise
their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused
in 2016."
... ... ...
On Sunday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, said the president
was determined to find out what had really happened, calling it potentially the "greatest abuse of
power" that the country has ever seen.
"Look, I think he's going off of information that he's seen that has led him to believe that this
is a very real potential," Ms. Sanders said on ABC's "This Week" program. "And if it is, this is
the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that I think we have ever seen and a huge
attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place."
... ... ...
Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have
said there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant
existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the
Press" program, "Not to my knowledge, no."
"... Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped, saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false ." ..."
"... Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from having given the order. ..."
"... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. ..."
"... For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election. ..."
"... Analyzing Obama's own statements over the years on the illegal wiretappings, one does not come to the conclusion that he can be trusted ..."
"... Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome. ..."
"... Obama, "The Russians did it" ..."
"... He says of course: "I am not a crook " R. Nixon. Give me a break the dickhead even tapped Angela Merkel's phone and half of Europe. ..."
Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped,
saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise
is simply false ."
Follows the statement from Kevin Lewis, spokesman to former president Barack Obama
"A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation
led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance
on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White
House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have
speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian
interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from
having given the order.
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer
in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned
down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally
granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election.
You have to appreciate the way he puts things out there that cause them to issue carefully worded denials that sound more like
confessions than anything else.
Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded
over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome.
neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, "ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise
is simply false."
Obama has taken credit for ordering the drone strike which killed US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Now we are being told that no
surveillance preceded that strike. Obama apparently ordered the strike and a drone was launched blindly into the heavens but it
still managed to find and destroy al-Awlaki entirely by chance.
http://theduran.com/obama-replies-trumps-wiretap-charge/
" This statement is classic Obama. It appears on its face to be clear and complete, but in reality it is nothing of the sort.
.. We are at a very early stage in this matter. There are multiple investigations underway, some launched by the outgoing Obama
administration against the incoming Trump administration, and some launched by the current Trump administration against the preceding
Obama administration. ... Obama's highly legalistic statement today – which reads very much like a defence statement – however
gives a good flavour of the direction some of these inquiries are taking. " ...
" The statement hints than any order to wiretap ... was the work of officials in the Justice Department ... This too is almost
certainly true. However it neglects to say that some of these officials were people whom Obama himself appointed, and who were
therefore part of his administration. "
Or he found out about it when his owners told him to make a statement & provide the msm more distraction from the great things
Trump is already accomplishing in this his 7th week on the job , despite the backstabbing congress, senate, spooks, crisis actors,
paid protestors and moochers.
The fanatics who did this are the the same fanatics who bombed London mass transit during a drill, and conducted the 911 heist
and mass execution during a drill.
Is anyone naive enough to think that Loretta Lynch and Obama were unaware that the Republican candidate for POTUS was being
wiretapped the month before the actual election?
This is Hillary like legal speak where Obozo is trying to keep his neck out of a legal sling. Sorry...Nixon tried that.
"A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation
led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered
surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false
When Obama says he did not order the wiretapping, he is probably telling the truth. Obama had no power at all -- he took the position knowing that he was only a cat's paw. He was content to be a facade and he knew it, and so did his wife. He was not smart enough to be a President, but he was egotistical enough to take the position and all the bennies in exchange
for taking orders from his handlers without question.
Does anyone really think he was smart enough to plan all the Middle East attacks for 8 years? Of course not -- the logistical planning for those events were far beyond his intelligence.
For that matter, has anyone seen his Columbia and Harvard transcripts? Of course not -- he was a dummy and a fake and the records would show that.
He was editor of the HLR but has anyone seen a sample of his writing? Of course not -- if it exists at all it is unimpressive.
It is doubtful that the Deep State would allow Obama access to such critical wiretapping. That sort of power is reserved for our tax funded, invisible slavemasters.
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
"... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good
start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful
fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including
some sort of "deep state" coup.
Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death),
which appears to be where we're headed at this point.
The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
As I wrote about
in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission
through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has
WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic
"fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.
This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either
completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who
could forget The Washington Post 's
"Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite
think tank), or their
"Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's
"Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll),
or Slate 's
"Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the
hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's
"Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?
Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling
classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of
democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing
to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman
who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.
These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries)
are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than
that.
Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly
paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures
where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media,
and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the
folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities."
Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence
officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent
members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising
the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network,
it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving
the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.
I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves
is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism.
The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary
concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every
other developed nation.
And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's
discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty
and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for
"European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash
their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give
billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the
capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people
who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them
or their families.
But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and
analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support
democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever
measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible
reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him
by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on
the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment,
as he did in the
wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's
convicted and dying in jail
, triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they
did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according
to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I
don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and
Love, of course, throughout the nation.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury
Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.
Neoliberal MSM do want to repeat their feat with Nixon impeachment... No question
about it. So deligimizing Trump is just a part of what Purple revolution is about
The MSM is a tool of the Deep State. Bernstein & Woodward were the Ministry of
Truth's agents helping a Deep State Coup of Nixon. Deep Throat was the Acting Head
of the FBI.
There is no problem turning the CIA/Mossad complex inward for regime change
in the US and Israel if they fail in their quest for advancing the NWO.
Outwardly, Russia and Iran are not in the Rothschild fold and must be
overthrown.
That is hilarious! Stein is cribbing from Spiro Agnew- which Stein probably
wrote in the first place:
Sometimes it appears that we're reaching a period
when our senses and our minds will no longer respond to moderate stimulation.
We seem to be reaching an age of the gross, persuasion through speeches and
books is too often discarded for disruptive demonstrations aimed at bludgeoning
the unconvinced into action.
The young--and by this I'd don't mean any stretch of the imagination all the
young, but I'm talking about those who claim to speak for the young--at the
zenith of physical power and sensitivity, overwhelm themselves with drugs and
artificial stimulants.
Subtlety is lost, and fine distinctions based on acute reasoning are
carelessly ignored in a headlong jump to a predetermined conclusion. Life is
visceral rather than intellectual. And the most visceral practitioners of life
are those who characterize themselves as intellectuals.
Truth is to them revealed rather than logically proved. And the principal
infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which
can accommodate any opinion, and about which the most reckless conjecture
cannot be discredited.
Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the
ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim, rather
than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated, and a
contemporary antagonism known as "The Generation Gap."
A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete core of
impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals
Vice President Spiro Agnew Speech, Houston, Texas
May 22, 1970
stellar bit of prose.....can you plagiarize yourself?
By the way, snowflake, Nixon was very close to instituting SINGLE PAYER
HEALTH CARE for Americans, but ass hacks like you killed that.
Do yourself a favor and put the video game down, get off the basement couch,
and go read some history books. He got us out of Vietnem, Kennedy put us in it
after Eisenhower warned him not to.
I haven't always agreed with Ben Stein but his opinion is always based on solid
facts and logic. I am glad he called the media out on this farce against our
President who is the Leader of the Free World.
They have not criticized Obama or
Hillary for their relentless murder of inncoent civilians overseas in Libya and
Syria, etc. not even once. And Hillary and the DNC has the nerve to drag out some
shill Muslim mr Khan to pretent they give a shit about Muslims.
Trump is finally realizing these are very despicable people and he has tried to
be polite to the media but they spit on him.
Thanks for posting this video. Glad to hear Mr Stein's thoughts.
Richard Nixon was a Boy Scout compared to George W. Bush & President Barack Bin
Ladin.
"...Nixon is evil incarnate to leftards, as they view him as nothing more
than a head in a jar, spewing hateful things -- plotting and scheming to undermine
civility -- when in fact the true record of Nixon is the exact opposite."
Yes.
And what is apparatchik? See BBC & US MSM especially NYT, WaPo, CNN.
Apparatchik - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik
Apparatchik /???p??r??t??k is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time,
professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (
apparatus) ...
Apparatchik | Definition of Apparatchik by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparatchik
Define apparatchik: a very loyal member of an organization (such as a company or
political party) who always obeys orders - apparatchik in a sentence.
Apparatchik - definition of apparatchik by The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/apparatchik
n. pl. ap·pa·ra·tchiks or ap·pa·ra·tchi·ki (-ch?-k?). 1. A member of a Communist
apparat. 2. An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader
or ...
Apparatchik – Russiapedia Of Russian origin
russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/apparatchik/
Communist middle managers An apparatchik is a full time employee in any position
of bureaucratic or political responsibility who served either in Communist ...
I remember Alternative was a thing in
the 1980s... dreamy or space music... liberal or ragamuffin hippy politics.
Alt doesn't really define anything, so an A for Alt doesn't work well for
me.
Maybe:
- C for conservative
- LC for Libertarian Conservative
- FC for Fiscal & Regulations Conservative?
- TC for Trump Conservative?
- CC for Christian Conservative?
- APC for Anti-Pedo Conservative?
- AWC for Anti-War Conservative?
- AGC for Anti-Globalist Conservative?
- ABC for Anti-Byzantine Conservative?
- ALBTLC for Anti-Lawyer-Banker-Taxes-Lobbyist Conservative?
Ben Stein? Still, at least he has stopped trying to give financial
advice which was even more accurate than Gartman as a contrary
indicator?
This appears to be another case of Stein trying to board
a vessel that departed long ago. And I for one am happy to be on the
ship without him. A complete shithead. IMHO.
nixon was one big mistake, that history can not erase. lbj worse.
american politics will never get better until big money is removed
-somehow, sigh...
seems hopeless to me. democracy only at the poll.
once elected these fuks follow the money trail provided by their
payMASTERS, while lying to the voters.
corporations(oligarchs) are the winners, and it is called fascism,
when corp and state meet. tell these fukflakes that all of dc is fascist.
In
the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very
good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN
& Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly
to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors
and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who
now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how
long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except
those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing
speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".
Furthermore,
by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other
information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time
around and that is how he might win again.
The
Neocons and the US 'Deep State' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they
appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides
to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have
a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye.
If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what
could happen next.
I
strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises
only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried
to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the 'deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten
him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support
of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress
suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the
streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops
going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people
will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters
the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they
have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.
There
are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the
people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American
people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy
of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really
have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it
this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the
creation of USNORTHCOM and the
statutory exceptions
from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions,
assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would
remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against
the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that.
Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own
people?
Donald
Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the
USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory"
controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.
This
week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will
get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly
paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump
– he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying
to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank
God for small favors
I
can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently
trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state,
but I am not holding my breath.
Tonight
I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump
and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war.
I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard.
Only time will tell.
Mike Moore's flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged
female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags' march without the pink
pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George
Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like
Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It's enough to
look at Madeleine Albright, another pussyface, for a proof. But if you need
more, his
Stupid White Men
has been the most execrable book produced
in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black,
the hijack would never have succeeded. Now the Pussyface bared the hidden plans
of Putin and
called for enthroninge Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy
. Years ago he
spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such
enemies, we should not give up on Trump.
Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He's been defeated, broken,
never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back
to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he
will run to his pal Vlad Putin.
No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take
time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted
against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on.
Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA
and NSA reveal his moves to the
NYT, CNN, NBC
; but he stands up, ready
to carry the fight to his – and American people's – enemy, the hydra of so many
triple-letter heads.
There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at
the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America's gates for the ISIS
advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they
wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his
order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the
judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He
can't do it yet, though it would make sense.
Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim:
all is lost
. It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down,
but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime
Minister Netanyahu, Trump
said
: "Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been
treated very, very unfairly by the media - as I call it, the fake media. It's
very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and
the documents and papers that were illegally - I stress that - illegally
leaked. Very, very unfair." These are fighting words, of a man who lost a
battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.
Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of
possible. Trump's words of support for the dismissed general were already out
of line.
Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US
President's surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the
Jewish assault crew,
attacked him
for refusing to mouth their favourite word "antisemitism",
Haaretz
declared
"Yes, Trump is an antisemite", the
NY Times
editorialised
why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis
called
his remarks "terrifying" and "anti-Zionist" for Trump refused to
tromp the well-trodden impasse called "two-states solution". By the way,
Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not
believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of
squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi
Netanyahu's support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the
bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.
It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can't be done
while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans.
Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without
falling of the earth's disc altogether.
After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump's
first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable
and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their
arričre-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising
capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump,
America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars.
Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger
joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a
U-turn couldn't pass unopposed.
Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will
not mention names so you won't be scared. None of them had a specially nice
personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and
perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right
time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But
besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or
secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.
These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and
unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two
"powers" out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is
owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda.
Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular
opinion.
ORDER IT NOW
The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of
nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an
additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a
non-Jew
"stealing"
his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers
of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical
change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.
Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US
intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political
enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many
Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old
traitor, John McCain
. Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge
debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in
order to get re-elected.
Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and
weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress.
I'd advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican
Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task.
This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.
Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a
witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone
conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious
loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to
Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be
treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services
are overblown; the US can't support one million spies. Eighty per cent should
go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be
loyal.
The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are
not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings
can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought
to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the
NY Times
, their
system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by
shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and
content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued
elsewhere
, but it would need the approval of Congress.
The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president
and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life
tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.
So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the
security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also
a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and
prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the
corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation.
Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders.
Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your
dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.
Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul
Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient
regime's hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle
properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years
consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had
full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution
written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.
President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not
unduly upset by President Trump's delay with normalising US-Russia relations.
The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news.
Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do
not hold their breath.
But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an
island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm
change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump
was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and
the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon.
The Brits weren't sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke.
After Trump's victory, the Brits marched on.
The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop
Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the
Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their
media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for
Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables
won hands down.
Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred
François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to
inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared
assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l'Élysée, an
unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament
misappropriated
(stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French
taxpayers' best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.
Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the
Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first
round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel
Macron, and he is not very impressive. His rhetoric of calling her "bitter" and
"enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite" as she is not keen on Arab immigration,
probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren't sure that
more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an
ally of Trump's America.
ORDER IT NOW
Fillon accused "shadowy" forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is
right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right
moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at
least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved
defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and "shadowy" force could make it
stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a "shadowy"
Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal
"invade-invite" force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force
caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen's way. It is probable Frau
Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama's preposterous plan
to install Germany as the liberal globalised world's cornerstone.
The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary
setbacks of Donald Trump can't change this tendency. Nationalist productive
capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority
promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over
yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are
losing.
We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters
of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the
Parliament approved it. Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump
sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is
coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from
behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the
Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.
"... In my opinion most of the Trump supporters have more or less legitimate or at least understandable gripes. It is easy to translate those into martial rhetoric or even actions with no direct personal costs attached, like protest voting or lashing out against powerless minorities or symbolic targets like desecrating cemeteries under the cover of night. ..."
"... For concerted violent actions that can have tangible consequences or outright secession from the teat that feeds them, the threshold is much higher. ..."
There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals
to the people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon
the American people.
Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy
of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government.
Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean
legally, I mean practically.
Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its
authority?
Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use
the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that
the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country?
His VP would become president, I guess. I expect a lot of people will be pissed off, but I don't expect it to lead to civil war.
The mid-1800's US civil war was fueled not by merely emotions, but strong underlying economic interests and ways of life that
were threatened. I don't really see that in this context.
In my opinion most of the Trump supporters have more or less legitimate or at least understandable gripes. It is easy to
translate those into martial rhetoric or even actions with no direct personal costs attached, like protest voting or lashing out
against powerless minorities or symbolic targets like desecrating cemeteries under the cover of night.
For concerted violent actions that can have tangible consequences or outright secession from the teat that feeds them,
the threshold is much higher.
No ... it does not seem credible that TX and FL would secede over a Trump impeachment. Trump isn't that popular, even in those
states. His approval rating is hovering in the mid-40s in Texas and in the 30s in Florida. There would have to be a HUGE swing
in his favor in those states for the state governors to decide that sticking with Trump is more important than sticking with the
Union.
BTW, the "0" in "George W. Bush 0pens Up on Trump" is a digit zero not letter "oh". Probably unintended as zero and Oh are next
to each other on the keyboard, and the difference may be hard to notice in most typefaces.
It slightly reminds me of the deliberate use of the word "pwned" to describe e.g. compromising and taking control of other
people's computers or internet accounts, or technical/social defeat in general. It is supposedly a reference to a decades old
computer game where "owned" was mistyped as "pwned".
"... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good
start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful
fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including
some sort of "deep state" coup.
Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death),
which appears to be where we're headed at this point.
The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
As I wrote about
in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission
through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has
WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic
"fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.
This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either
completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who
could forget The Washington Post 's
"Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite
think tank), or their
"Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's
"Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll),
or Slate 's
"Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the
hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's
"Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?
Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling
classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of
democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing
to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman
who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.
These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries)
are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than
that.
Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly
paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures
where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media,
and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the
folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities."
Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence
officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent
members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising
the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network,
it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving
the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.
I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves
is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism.
The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary
concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every
other developed nation.
And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's
discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty
and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for
"European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash
their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give
billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the
capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people
who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them
or their families.
But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and
analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support
democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever
measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible
reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him
by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on
the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment,
as he did in the
wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's
convicted and dying in jail
, triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they
did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according
to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I
don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and
Love, of course, throughout the nation.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury
Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.
"... an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism, ..."
"... he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American. ..."
"... The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism. ..."
"... The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities. ..."
"... The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. ..."
"... " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;" ..."
"... "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; " ..."
"... " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;" ..."
"... I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do. ..."
... While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are
also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme
which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.
Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values
and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the
fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.
Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even
personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details
which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness
or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public
conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect
that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points
out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman
in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially
American.
Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having
always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines
with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s
relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It
is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media . He exposes the alienation
the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.
Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner,
its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial
basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian
conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.
Tom Munro:
What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar
to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive
approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first
and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans
see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.
The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but
it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism . Whilst America as a nation
has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values
are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative
Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip
on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism.
Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small
geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not
travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier
for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.
The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist
party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist
gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American
forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few
and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.
The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America
to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America
from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as
the invasion of Iraq.
The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What
is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.
Keith Wheelock (Skillman, NJ USA)
A Socratic 'America know thyself': READ IT!, August 13, 2010
Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait
and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War
II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's
THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America.
Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country
that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."
Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting
historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His
2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review
of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly
analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived
in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans
and his source materials are excellent.
I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the
tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The
picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his
book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE
OF AMERICA.
I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross
currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that
he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration.
My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love'
essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.
Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:
" The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis
of political stupidity;"
"Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its
success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
"Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli
nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim
world and in fueling terrorism;"
"American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary
Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on
me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
"One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward
at a vanished and idealized national past; "
"America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious
belief in the Western world;"
"The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the
forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be
compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
"The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the
Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism
which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
"American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened,
viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
" [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters...,
as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever
on American behavior and interests ;"
"Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make
the nation most admired in the world;" and
"This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and
national messianism led other great countries in the past."
Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters
that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East,
may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel
Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli
matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's
role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents
a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests
in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.
In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote,
"The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness
to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered
with a measure of apathy and common sense."
I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG
is a timely and important book.
In
the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very
good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN
& Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly
to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors
and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who
now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how
long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except
those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing
speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".
Furthermore,
by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other
information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time
around and that is how he might win again.
The
Neocons and the US 'Deep State' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they
appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides
to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have
a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye.
If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what
could happen next.
I
strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises
only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried
to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the 'deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten
him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support
of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress
suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the
streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops
going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people
will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters
the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they
have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.
There
are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the
people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American
people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy
of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really
have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it
this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the
creation of USNORTHCOM and the
statutory exceptions
from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions,
assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would
remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against
the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that.
Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own
people?
Donald
Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the
USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory"
controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.
This
week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will
get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly
paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump
– he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying
to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank
God for small favors
I
can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently
trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state,
but I am not holding my breath.
Tonight
I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump
and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war.
I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard.
Only time will tell.
Mike Moore's flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged
female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags' march without the pink
pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George
Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like
Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It's enough to
look at Madeleine Albright, another pussyface, for a proof. But if you need
more, his
Stupid White Men
has been the most execrable book produced
in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black,
the hijack would never have succeeded. Now the Pussyface bared the hidden plans
of Putin and
called for enthroninge Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy
. Years ago he
spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such
enemies, we should not give up on Trump.
Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He's been defeated, broken,
never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back
to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he
will run to his pal Vlad Putin.
No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take
time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted
against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on.
Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA
and NSA reveal his moves to the
NYT, CNN, NBC
; but he stands up, ready
to carry the fight to his – and American people's – enemy, the hydra of so many
triple-letter heads.
There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at
the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America's gates for the ISIS
advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they
wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his
order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the
judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He
can't do it yet, though it would make sense.
Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim:
all is lost
. It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down,
but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime
Minister Netanyahu, Trump
said
: "Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been
treated very, very unfairly by the media - as I call it, the fake media. It's
very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and
the documents and papers that were illegally - I stress that - illegally
leaked. Very, very unfair." These are fighting words, of a man who lost a
battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.
Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of
possible. Trump's words of support for the dismissed general were already out
of line.
Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US
President's surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the
Jewish assault crew,
attacked him
for refusing to mouth their favourite word "antisemitism",
Haaretz
declared
"Yes, Trump is an antisemite", the
NY Times
editorialised
why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis
called
his remarks "terrifying" and "anti-Zionist" for Trump refused to
tromp the well-trodden impasse called "two-states solution". By the way,
Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not
believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of
squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi
Netanyahu's support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the
bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.
It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can't be done
while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans.
Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without
falling of the earth's disc altogether.
After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump's
first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable
and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their
arričre-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising
capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump,
America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars.
Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger
joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a
U-turn couldn't pass unopposed.
Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will
not mention names so you won't be scared. None of them had a specially nice
personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and
perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right
time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But
besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or
secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.
These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and
unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two
"powers" out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is
owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda.
Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular
opinion.
ORDER IT NOW
The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of
nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an
additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a
non-Jew
"stealing"
his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers
of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical
change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.
Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US
intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political
enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many
Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old
traitor, John McCain
. Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge
debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in
order to get re-elected.
Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and
weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress.
I'd advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican
Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task.
This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.
Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a
witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone
conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious
loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to
Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be
treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services
are overblown; the US can't support one million spies. Eighty per cent should
go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be
loyal.
The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are
not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings
can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought
to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the
NY Times
, their
system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by
shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and
content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued
elsewhere
, but it would need the approval of Congress.
The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president
and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life
tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.
So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the
security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also
a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and
prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the
corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation.
Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders.
Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your
dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.
Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul
Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient
regime's hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle
properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years
consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had
full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution
written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.
President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not
unduly upset by President Trump's delay with normalising US-Russia relations.
The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news.
Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do
not hold their breath.
But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an
island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm
change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump
was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and
the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon.
The Brits weren't sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke.
After Trump's victory, the Brits marched on.
The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop
Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the
Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their
media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for
Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables
won hands down.
Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred
François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to
inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared
assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l'Élysée, an
unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament
misappropriated
(stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French
taxpayers' best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.
Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the
Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first
round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel
Macron, and he is not very impressive. His rhetoric of calling her "bitter" and
"enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite" as she is not keen on Arab immigration,
probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren't sure that
more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an
ally of Trump's America.
ORDER IT NOW
Fillon accused "shadowy" forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is
right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right
moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at
least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved
defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and "shadowy" force could make it
stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a "shadowy"
Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal
"invade-invite" force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force
caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen's way. It is probable Frau
Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama's preposterous plan
to install Germany as the liberal globalised world's cornerstone.
The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary
setbacks of Donald Trump can't change this tendency. Nationalist productive
capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority
promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over
yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are
losing.
We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters
of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the
Parliament approved it. Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump
sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is
coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from
behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the
Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.
"... Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries of concern. ..."
"... A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS. ..."
Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical
of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle
Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries
of concern.
Based on that leaked document, the Associated Press
published a story on Friday with the headline "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from
banned nations."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient
evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's
travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.
A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely
indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump
listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities
in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Click
here to see the leaked document. ... ... ...
Last week, Breitbart News
reported that David Grannis, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis in
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, is a holdover Obama
bureaucrat who President Trump could remove from his position immediately:
A lifelong Democrat, "[p]rior to joining DHS, Mr. Grannis served as the Staff Director of the
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) from 2009 through 2014 and as the Minority Staff
Director for 2015. During this time, he served as the principal intelligence advisor to SSCI Chairman
Dianne Feinstein and SSCI Members and led the Committee's efforts to produce and enact annual Intelligence
Authorization Act from 2010 through 2016 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015,
according to the DHS website.
He has spent his career working for partisan Democratic members of Congress:
He previously served as a staff designee to Senator Feinstein on the SSCI from 2005 until 2009
with a varied portfolio of committee responsibilities. Mr. Grannis worked on the House Select Committee
on Homeland Security with responsibilities for intelligence, aviation security, and science and technology
from 2003 to 2005 and was Senior Policy Advisor to Representative Jane Harman on matters of national
security from 2001 to 2003.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that
Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be
authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS.
Agreed– Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of
Trump's vaunted (around here anyway) reconciliation with Russia policy. New
National Security Advisor McMaster is a Petraeus follower, and has
repeatedly called out Russia as an aggressive power which must be contained
and deterred with US and NATO military power.
He's just an advisor. MacMaster will not make policy. But Trump is
finding out, as many presidents have before him, that to a large extent
the Pentagon runs itself. The military plans things way ahead of time. As
president it's difficult to buck heads with the PTB on foreign policy.
The best Trump may be able to do for the time being is stay out of war.
I would prefer an outright lovefest with Russia. I like their anti-GMO
policy. Maybe in a few years.
The essence of "deep state" meme is that "color revolution" (
nicknamed "purple revolution") is launched against Trump by a
coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of Wall
Street (Globalist Billionaires), a faction of MIC, and
powerful factions of three letter agencies (and first of all
CIA).
It's no coincidence that JFK wished he could splinter the
CIA 'Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter It Into The Winds'.
And paid the ultimate price for this wish. The CIA coup like
JFS assassination that involves removal of Trump from power
is what the "deep state meme" currently implies.
The Deep State Conducts a Purple Revolution Against the Trump
Administration
State of the Nation
There is now a full-scale clandestine revolutionary war
being waged against the Trump Administration. The CIA
usually attempts a soft coup first at the direction of its
masters in Deep State. When that's not successful in
effectuating a regime change, they know the territory has
been sufficiently softened up for the hot phase of the
revolution.
In these United States of America, that revolution is
known as the ongoing but rapidly intensifying Purple
Revolution. This seditious revolution began the very day that
President Trump won the election on November 8, 2016, if not
before.
KEY POINTS:
• Deep State will not permit President Trump to govern as
POTUS.
• Deep State uses the CIA and the Mainstream Media
(MSM) to run interference at every turn against the Trump
Administration
• Deep State will continue to prosecute the revolution
until Trump is removed from power
• Deep State will eventually attempt to oust the entire
Trump Administration
These preceding bullet points constitute the current NWO
globalist agenda being implemented throughout the USA in
direct opposition to the Trump Administration. In other
words, when Assistant to the President and White House Chief
Strategist Steve Bannon said that the Mainstream Media (MSM)
had morphed into the opposition party, he was speaking
literally.
"Steve Bannon: 'I Could Care Less' About Repairing
Relationship with 'Opposition Party' Media" - BREITBART
A Counter Declaration of War on the Mainstream Media
There you have it (see preceding link), the whole world is
now witnessing an all-out war between the MSM and a sitting
POTUS. This unparalleled conflict is not only being fought
between the Mainstream Media and the Trump Administration,
it's occurring throughout the entire body politic of the USA
and beyond.
The U.S. citizenry saw as never before the complete lack
of integrity exhibited by the MSM during the entire 2016
election cycle. Candidate Trump exposed the lying media and
avalanche of fake news with his every news conference and
campaign stop. In so doing, the whole world is now aware that
the MSM can never - EVER - be trusted again.
Because the MSM is the primary mouthpiece of Deep State, a
highly consequential decision was made by its concealed
leadership to remove Trump from power with great haste and
recklessness lest their Global Control Matrix experience an
unprecedented collapse. Deep State knows full well that it's
now in its death throes. And that such grave existential
threats must be faced before its entire superstructure (and
infrastructure) falls into it own footprint.
This 21st century "War of the Titans" has gotten so hot,
in fact, that there is now no turning back for either side.
IT WILL BE A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.
Because the Mainstream Media has been outed like never,
the most likely outcome is that it will simply be shut down.
The public domain is now replete with hard evidence proving
treason and sedition perpetrated over many decades by the
MSM. Once the American people have reviewed the relevant
proof of high treason and crimes against humanity, it will
only be a matter of MSM industrywide criminal prosecution.
Bear in mind that Deep State cannot function to any
reasonable degree without total ownership and efficient
functioning of the media. The CIA, as well as the other 16
US intelligence agencies, all require the media cover
staunchly provided by the MSM. So does the
Military-Industrial Complex, as does the much larger
Government-Corporate Complex. Therefore, when the MSM finally
crashes and burns, so will all of the other major entities
which comprise the Deep State.
"MAY DAY! MAY DAY! MAY DAY!"
With this critical understanding it ought to be quite
obvious that the next 120 days are pivotal for Deep State.
Every single day that the Trump Administration is able to
consolidate and increase its power, Deep State loses its
influence throughout the US government and the
world-at-large. Such a crucial attenuation of power will
serve as the death knell of the Deep State within the
American Republic.
Hence, there is now a great race against time for both
sides of this epic war. The agents of Deep State clearly hope
that a soft coup will be successful through a presidential
impeachment or by other means. The CIA recently executed
such a strategy to 'peacefully' remove Dilma Rousseff, the
36th President of Brazil.
Make no mistake about it, if a soft coup is not
successful, the agents of Deep State will commence the hot
phase of their Purple Revolution. Everything points to a
massive May Day stealth event. An unrivaled National Mall
rally in D.C. attended by the many misguided groups which
make up the Democratic Party is already in the works.
An enormous May Day protest could be used to manufacture a
context in which a Maidan type event takes place (remember
the violent uprising in Kiev, Ukraine). The Illuminati are
notorious for using dates and numerology by which to stage
their revolutions and civil wars over centuries (e.g. May Day
parades and terror events). Just as the engineered uprising
in Kiev was surreptitiously utilized to force Ukrainian
President Viktor Yanukovych into exile, a similar trigger
point could be fabricated by which the Bolshevik Left goes
really crazy and tries to chase Trump from the White House.
"Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia
stories"
By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM
"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress
in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged
issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White
House.
Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last
week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's
campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.
The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration
to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories
on the alleged contacts with Russia.
The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose
that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in
White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...
After Kennedy took office, he was unaware that the CIA, in accord with an OK from President Eisenhower
and working with the Belgians, had overseen the gruesome torture and brutal murder of the Congo's
popular first prime minister, Patrice Lumumba.
With Lumumba already dead a month and his body dissolved in sulphuric acid, Kennedy called for
him to be reintegrated into the new nation's government. The CIA-- Allen Dulles, who JFK foolishly
kept on as director-- hadn't told him that they had carried out Eisenhower 's orders to have him
murdered as a commie dupe.
According to Stephen Kinzer's book about Allen and John Foster Dulles,
The Brothers
, "Less than two years
later, Allen casually admitted that he might have exaggerated the danger Lumumba posed to the West.
A television interviewer, Eric Severeid, asked him if he had come to believe that any of his covert
operations were unnecessary. He named just one. 'I think that we overrated the danger in, let's say,
the Congo,' Allen said. 'It looked as though they were going to make a serious attempt at takeover
in the Belgian Congo. Well, it didn't work out that way at all. Now maybe they intended to do it,
but they didn't find the situation ripe and they beat a pretty hasty retreat.'" There was worse to
come.
Eisenhower had also authorized the assassination of Fidel Castro. When that didn't work out, he
authorized a half-assed invasion of Cuban that came to fruition right after Kennedy became president,
the Bay of Pigs. As the clownish plot fell apart in the first minutes of the "invasion," the CIA
and some elements of the military tried to get Kennedy to U.S. commit Air Force, Naval and Army resources.
He thought they were all out of their minds and realized he had made a terrible mistake by keeping
Dulles-- who was completely senile by then-- in office. Again, from
The Brothers
:
At White House meetings the next day, Kennedy fended off more pleas that he send U.S. forces
to support the Bay of Pigs invaders. The strongest came from his chief of naval operations, Admiral
Arleigh Burke, who came into the Oval Office late in the evening with an equally agited [CIA official
Richard] Bissell.
"Let me take two jets and shoot down this enemy aircraft," Burke pleaded.
"No," Kennedy replied. "I don't want to get the United States involved with this."
"Can I not send in an airstrike?"
"No."
"Can we send in a few planes?"
"No, because they could be identified as United States."
"Can we paint out their numbers?"
"No."
Grasping for options, Burke asked if Kennedy would authorize artillery attacks on Cuban forces
from American destroyers. The answer was the same: "No."
Later that day Kennedy told an aide, "I probably made a mistake keeping Allen Dulles."
More than one hundred of the invaders had died. Most of the rest were rounded up and imprisoned.
For Castro it was a supreme, ecstatic triumph. Kennedy was staggered.
"How can I have been so stupid?" he wondered aloud.
Others were equally stunned. Criticism of the CIA, in both the press and Congress, rose to
unprecedented intensity. Allen was not spared. The cover story in
Time
, headlined "The
Cuba Disaster," questioned his very concept of intelligence.
If Allen had not yet confronted the implications of the Bay of Pigs disaster, Kennedy had.
In private he cursed "CIA bastards" for luring him into it, and wished he could "splinter the
CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."
He should have. America would have been much better off. But all he did was fire Dulles, too late
to prevent the horrors the Dulles brothers committed in our names in Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia,
Vietnam, not to mention the Congo and Cuba.
No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
Notable quotes:
"... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
"... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
"... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
"... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
"... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
"... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The
operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against
Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough
preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old
one.
Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence.
The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted
in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.
The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn
the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation.
It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational
capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives,
something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence
of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful
execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.
Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the
deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is
obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of
gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European
Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have
every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation
with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.
Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy,
using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts
will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States
and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their
long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU
as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter
strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense,
the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign-
policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.
Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events
in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited
Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive
against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to
sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO
escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to
push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third
is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort
to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct
involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives,
setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.
The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it
is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview
with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine
of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic
evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.
This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:
"There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country
is so innocent?"
What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors
of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and
financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred
years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the
concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".
In an
article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing
a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations.
In a passage I wrote:
"Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various
political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative
and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns
in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't
believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference
in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much
in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical
figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al
Qaeda and al Nusra front".
The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent
US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with
the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference
with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington
will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya".
During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always
coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is
becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding
Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation
in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate
article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.
Conclusions and future questions
There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily
Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump
to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences,
bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants
to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration
that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending
spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with
the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.
The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures
of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to
the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby,
the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come
to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay
the price.
" What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."
This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not
find the gumption to continue reading.
The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with
brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even
if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party
would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much
has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of
view.
*** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice
as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War
Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll
back the spectre of "1984".
"... "Third, neoconservatives, responsible for movement conservatism's liberal-interventionist stance, have been the most vocal critics of Trump's agenda. Trump's almost Jacksonian brand of foreign policy is unlikely to ever win over this small but influential cohort." ..."
Foreign policy is the biggest conflict between Trump's campaign promises and the
Republican establishment.
Trump promised détente with Russia and an end to
regime change wars.
The establishment wants a continuation of the Saudi/Israeli "outside-in"
foreign policy: Cold War II and regime change wars.
The establishment's foreign policy has been a catastrophic failure. Thousands
of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners have died. Trillions
of dollars have been wasted. There are millions of refugees, and tens of millions
of migrants. Christian communities in the Middle East who survived almost 14
centuries of Muslim rule, who even survived genocidal maniacs such as Tamerlane
and The Young Turks, have been destroyed by the neocons. Al-Qaeda and its
offshoots such as Nusra Front, ISIS, and AQAP are stronger than ever.
We need to vociferously support the foreign policy promises which helped Trump
win the election: 1. No more regime change wars. 2. Détente with Russia and every
other country which wants to help destroy Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, and return
peace and stability to the Middle East.
Re:
"Third, neoconservatives, responsible for movement conservatism's
liberal-interventionist stance, have been the most vocal critics of Trump's
agenda. Trump's almost Jacksonian brand of foreign policy is unlikely to ever win
over this small but influential cohort."
Agree 100% with John Gruskos. The
quote above is already OBE. Trump's inner sanctum has been fully militarized. Rex
Tillerson has already been shoved to the corner. The belligerent speech at the UN
by Nikki Haley had to have been vetted by the White House. Foreign policy is being
run by the Militarists.
The people banging in Trump's ear on a daily basis now are Military lifers who
grew up professionally to view foreign policy as a nail to be pounded down by the
War Machine hammer. And they have their favorite targets all picked out: Russia,
Iran, China. The Militarists have rolled Trump into compliant Neocon orthodoxy.
Moreover, to amplify John Gruskos observations, Trump also wants to
significantly increase "defense" spending for conventional forces and also take on
a massively expensive charge for updating the nuclear weapons inventory. Trump is
apparently providing the Neocons with everything that they could want.
BTW, halving the workforce of the civilian agencies is a drop in the bucket
compared to the millions of workers and contractors attached to the Security
State. Given that Trump is fully invested in the Cult of Military Exceptionalism,
the Security State is again immune from a rational benefit-cost assessment and
intelligent downsizing of wasteful programs and activities.
Short of the actual military confrontations that are probably already in the
planning stage, this is about as bad as it can get. The Trump Big Sell-Out is
nearing completion.
P.S. the CPAC/Breitbart crowd are screaming wildly for Trump's military
initiatives, not realizing that they are yet again being played for chumps by the
Neocons and the Security State apparatus.
" we are a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace
with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being.."
Unless movement "conservatives" subscribe to the above-stated ideal, they are on
no use to the American people and will, hopefully, fade away.
The essence of "deep state" meme is that "color revolution" ( nicknamed "purple revolution") is
launched against Trump by a coalition of Democratic Party operatives, a faction of Wall Street
(Globalist Billionaires), a faction of MIC, and powerful factions of three letter agencies (and
first of all CIA).
It's no coincidence that JFK wished he could splinter the CIA 'Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter
It Into The Winds'. And paid the ultimate price for this wish. The CIA coup like JFS assassination
that involves removal of Trump from power is what the "deep state meme" currently implies.
The Deep State Conducts a Purple Revolution Against the Trump Administration
State of the Nation
There is now a full-scale clandestine revolutionary war being waged against the Trump Administration.
The CIA usually attempts a soft coup first at the direction of its masters in Deep State. When
that's not successful in effectuating a regime change, they know the territory has been sufficiently
softened up for the hot phase of the revolution.
In these United States of America, that revolution is known as the ongoing but rapidly intensifying
Purple Revolution. This seditious revolution began the very day that President Trump won the election
on November 8, 2016, if not before.
KEY POINTS:
• Deep State will not permit President Trump to govern as POTUS.
• Deep State uses the CIA and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to run interference at every turn
against the Trump Administration
• Deep State will continue to prosecute the revolution until Trump is removed from power
• Deep State will eventually attempt to oust the entire Trump Administration
These preceding bullet points constitute the current NWO globalist agenda being implemented
throughout the USA in direct opposition to the Trump Administration. In other words, when Assistant
to the President and White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said that the Mainstream Media
(MSM) had morphed into the opposition party, he was speaking literally.
"Steve Bannon: 'I Could Care Less' About Repairing Relationship with 'Opposition Party' Media"
- BREITBART
A Counter Declaration of War on the Mainstream Media
There you have it (see preceding link), the whole world is now witnessing an all-out war between
the MSM and a sitting POTUS. This unparalleled conflict is not only being fought between the Mainstream
Media and the Trump Administration, it's occurring throughout the entire body politic of the USA
and beyond.
The U.S. citizenry saw as never before the complete lack of integrity exhibited by the MSM
during the entire 2016 election cycle. Candidate Trump exposed the lying media and avalanche of
fake news with his every news conference and campaign stop. In so doing, the whole world is now
aware that the MSM can never - EVER - be trusted again.
Because the MSM is the primary mouthpiece of Deep State, a highly consequential decision was
made by its concealed leadership to remove Trump from power with great haste and recklessness
lest their Global Control Matrix experience an unprecedented collapse. Deep State knows full well
that it's now in its death throes. And that such grave existential threats must be faced before
its entire superstructure (and infrastructure) falls into it own footprint.
This 21st century "War of the Titans" has gotten so hot, in fact, that there is now no turning
back for either side. IT WILL BE A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.
Because the Mainstream Media has been outed like never, the most likely outcome is that it
will simply be shut down. The public domain is now replete with hard evidence proving treason
and sedition perpetrated over many decades by the MSM. Once the American people have reviewed
the relevant proof of high treason and crimes against humanity, it will only be a matter of MSM
industrywide criminal prosecution.
Bear in mind that Deep State cannot function to any reasonable degree without total ownership
and efficient functioning of the media. The CIA, as well as the other 16 US intelligence agencies,
all require the media cover staunchly provided by the MSM. So does the Military-Industrial Complex,
as does the much larger Government-Corporate Complex. Therefore, when the MSM finally crashes
and burns, so will all of the other major entities which comprise the Deep State.
"MAY DAY! MAY DAY! MAY DAY!"
With this critical understanding it ought to be quite obvious that the next 120 days are pivotal
for Deep State. Every single day that the Trump Administration is able to consolidate and increase
its power, Deep State loses its influence throughout the US government and the world-at-large.
Such a crucial attenuation of power will serve as the death knell of the Deep State within the
American Republic.
Hence, there is now a great race against time for both sides of this epic war. The agents
of Deep State clearly hope that a soft coup will be successful through a presidential impeachment
or by other means. The CIA recently executed such a strategy to 'peacefully' remove Dilma Rousseff,
the 36th President of Brazil.
Make no mistake about it, if a soft coup is not successful, the agents of Deep State will commence
the hot phase of their Purple Revolution. Everything points to a massive May Day stealth event.
An unrivaled National Mall rally in D.C. attended by the many misguided groups which make up the
Democratic Party is already in the works.
An enormous May Day protest could be used to manufacture a context in which a Maidan type event
takes place (remember the violent uprising in Kiev, Ukraine). The Illuminati are notorious for
using dates and numerology by which to stage their revolutions and civil wars over centuries (e.g.
May Day parades and terror events). Just as the engineered uprising in Kiev was surreptitiously
utilized to force Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych into exile, a similar trigger point could
be fabricated by which the Bolshevik Left goes really crazy and tries to chase Trump from the
White House.
"... "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power " ..."
Michael Flynn was a seriously dangerous man, and I am very relieved that he will no longer be in
a position of power. But
Damon Linker is absolutely right that the way he was brought down should worry everyone who cares
about the health of American democracy:
Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or
political assassination ) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The
results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.
Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many
Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information
to the press - mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say,
"someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!"
It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone
is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community
are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking
anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified,
unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.
The Eli Lake article that Linker links to is worth reading in full, but I'll pull out a key section
here:
The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely
distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak
as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and
others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president
and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of
American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."
Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the
leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington
Post
reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe.
The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump's presidential campaign
- Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone - are being
investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian
government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia's role in hacking and distributing emails
of leading Democrats before the election.
Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country's propaganda
network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker's bureau for his appearance.
That doesn't look good, but it's also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there
are many unanswered questions about Trump's and his administration's ties to Russia.
But that's all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It's possible that
Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It's also possible
that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking
highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.
Here's the thing: I understand why the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies are behaving
the way they are. It's not just that they are opposed to Trump's policies, or that they have personal
reasons to hate Flynn or Bannon or anybody else on the Trump team. It's that
they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security
because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power or, at best, extremely
senior people (including the President himself) who flagrantly disregard basic security precautions:
For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president's eyes only, containing enormously
sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump
and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.
Since NSA provides
something
like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what's being kept from the
White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the
IC, and NSA doesn't appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration
out of security fears.
What's going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated
that "since January 20, we've assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM," meaning the
White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president
and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. "There's not much the Russians don't know at
this point," the official added in wry frustration.
None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow
wasn't something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility
until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin,
and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution
and concern.
When the press first started hyperventilating about Russia,
I wrote a
column about how we all needed to calm down - because my concern was that the focus was misplaced,
because Russia isn't the problem:
Russia's alleged actions are
entirely unsurprising and far from unprecedented . They are not only the kind of thing that
Russia has done before, they are the kind of thing that we have done before - including
in Russia's neighborhood
. Russia's actions may well deserve a response - but the most important response would be
to make cyber security a significantly higher priority. They certainly don't merit panic about
Russian intentions, or about the fragility of American institutions.
By contrast, the opacity of Trump's financial relationships does remain a serious problem,
and the possibility that he is personally subject to Russian "influence" because of financial
liabilities held by Russian banks could taint any attempt to improve relations between our countries.
And of course if the Trump campaign actually coordinated with Russia on dirty tricks, that would
be a crime amply deserving investigation, and potentially impeachment.
But at this point, there is no evidence at all of that kind of wrongdoing. That ought to matter.
And it ought to be possible to investigate the possibility of corruption or criminal collusion
without indulging in scaremongering about the Russian threat. Indeed, advocates of a friendlier
relationship with Russia should be the first to call for such scrutiny - because an opening to
Russia will only be durable if the American people believe that it rests on a solid institutional
foundation and genuine mutual interest.
Meanwhile, those arguing that Russia undermined the integrity of the American electoral system
need to take a good look in the mirror. Nothing Russia did or didn't do can come close to the
damage that will potentially be done by exaggerating the extent and impact of that influence,
much less creating a constitutional crisis in response.
Re: "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat
to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign
power "
Foreign power!? That's rich! A U.S. government who plays the lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows
to the ruthless slave-holders and head choppers in the Middle East. And fronted by a sclerotic,
completely coöpted MSM.
And have Millman or the others who take backhanded swipes at RT ever actually watched any of
its programming? The American produced RT programs (4 or 5 hours a night) have brutally attacked
Trump non-stop, before, during and after the election.
RT Moscow programs SophieCo and World's Apart regularly have guests that represent conventional
(i.e., Russia hating) American/European points of view. When is the last time that a major American
media outlet interviewed a rational thoughtful Russian whose views are aligned with the Russian
government, e.g. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova?
And RT has critically challenged the completely biased propaganda coming out of Syria by the
Western MSM. There is a lot happening behind the Syrian jihadist curtain that the U.S. government
and the toady MSM don't want us to see. If RT does not pose the questions in the West, who will?
Is RT fundamentally biased? Certainly and sometimes crudely so. But that bias was the direct
result of the clumsy, stupid coup that the U.S. fronted by Obama vulgarian stooge Victoria Nuland
engineered in Ukraine.
This holier than thou schtick that the Left is drumming up against Trump and Russia when the
U.S. has been guilty of similar shenanigans and outright criminality for decades is completely
bogus.
Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence
community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy
is supposed to function.
And there is really only one way to avoid such a crisis: for Congress to step up and begin
the necessary investigations of the Trump administration.
Agreed. One of this country's main problems in recent history is congress abdicating its duties.
This neglect leaves more power, and more potential misuse of power, in the hands of the executive.
The only way we can get back to a sense of normal democracy is for Congress to take more responsibility
for this country's actions.
Flynn himself plays lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows to the ruthless slave-owners and the
head-choppers in the Middle East more than anyone, especially by supporting war/regime change
in Iran. It's a good thing he's gone and the Trump administration is better for it (now if only
Trump could stop sucking up to Bibi).
As for "the Left", which part of the Left are you referring to? The "tankie" leftists still
love Putin themselves.
Flynn is indeed a war-monger nut-job. The sad thing is that his apparent replacement is also
another war-monger nut-job, retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward who is a greaser for delivering
weapons systems from American Merchant of Death Lockheed Martin to the slave-holding, head-chopping
Gulf States. The same anti-Iranian Gulf States that are pulverizing Yemen.
It's good to be him
Do any of these Bush/Obama era Pentagon Brass Meatballs have documented evidence that they
actually reported back the huge Clusterf*ck that is the Middle Eastern quagmire that has cost
the taxpayers TRILLIONS?
In other words, Harward is probably just another go-along to get-along militarist crony who
never reported back what he actually saw. I.e., huge amounts of American Green being flushed down
the toilet. And as always, what the heck? It ain't his money
Looks like more ready, fire, aim shenanigans from the Trump Neocon cabal once this latest Navy
Boy "Warrior-Hero" comes aboard to oversee the perpetual American Global Cop stupidity.
Would anyone have demanded an investigation of, say, high-level connections to Saudi Arabia? Would
anyone have characterized Huma Abedin as "Saudi Arabia having ears inside the WH", or Dennis Ross
as "Israel having ears inside the WH"? It's commentary malpractice to write a piece like this
and not at least discuss the weird double standard applied to Russia vs other foreign powers.
So Noah Millman wants to bring down the elected Trump Presidency, and sides with the Deep State
patriots? That's what impression this leaves me with. A whole lot of people don't have much love
for voting and democracy anymore. And this mad Russophobia is MyCarthy Dementia 2.0.
Motives do matter when considering how to frame a story based on leaks. For instance, Snowden's
motives were highly important when evaluating his disclosures, which is both why the government
and his advocates were so at pains to characterize them either good or bad. They and others have
spent at least as much effort as publishing the contents, putting both them and the consequences
in context.
The control of information is an exercise in power. It would be foolish not to consider what
the leaker intends to accomplish by selectively leaking, whether or not the exercise is one of
manipulation of public opinion rather than informing the public, and whether or not it is actually
in service of the truth without that context.
A consequence of the full take of collect it all in regards to everyone's communication is
that such a trove about everyone's lives makes a universal blackmail possible by Deep State actors,
a kind of veto power over all lives and all politics.
I am cautious about this particular opinion, because it treads very close to political biases
to have "gotten" Flynn whom he deeply disagreed with, leading him to err on the side of praising
politicized secret intelligence state leakers who have zero interest, unlike Snowden, in public
accountability.
With gerrymandering and dark money, thanks to Citizen's United, and a continuing dilution of representation
thanks to the fixed number of Congressional reps in a growing population, Congress is unable to/given
up its role as a check to the power of the Executive branch. Civilian soldiers in the bureaucracy
are now making choices, right or wrong, to salvage what's left of the Republic.
Sadly we cannot trust senators and congressmen to place duty above partisanship, or more to the
point, country above partisanship. So with possible traitors in the White House and congress controlled
by the same party, the leakers only real option is to leak.
We need the leakers to keep at it, and the press to keep digging, so that together they can
empower the public to do the right thing, as this will not get a proper investigation unless the
public forces it. And even then the GOP is likely to try to hide as much of it as they can behind
the curtain of "national security."
As I understand it those who are doing the leaking are risking both careers and liberty to
do so. I hope for the country's sake they can get everything else they have out to the press before
they can be shut down.
The aspects of this that fall outside the executive branch should be considered more of a "partisanship
crisis" than a constitutional crisis. Maybe down the line the public can force a couple of follow
up investigations: "What did Jason Chaffetz know and when did he know it." Maybe Comey too.
I am glad Flynn is gone mainly because his views on Iran were nuts and dangerous. His apparent
support for rapprochement with Russia is a point in his favor.
The real problem with the military-security-industrial complex targeting an executive branch
figure who threatens our national interests is that it is NOT the Deep State's job to determine
what our national interests are.
In reality, it is very much in the national interest of the United States to have normal, correct
state-to-state relations with both Russia and Iran, cooperating with each of them in the many
areas where our interests converge, and not demonizing or destabilizing either of those regimes.
The Deep State is obsessed with demonizing both Iran and Russia, meanwhile propagating the
fantastic lie that the militant Sunni Muslim regimes and militias around the Middle East are our
"moderates" or even our "allies." This insanity needs to stop, and the elected branches of government
have every right and duty to stop it.
Yesterday Bill Kristol tweeted that "if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."
This confirms everything Shadia Drury says about the East Coast Straussians. If you haven't read
her book–the first book-length critique of the ideas of Leo Strauss–do so now if you want to hit
back against the deep state and its "deep" Straussianism.
"... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
"... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
"... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
"... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
"... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
"... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The
operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against
Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough
preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old
one.
Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence.
The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted
in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.
The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn
the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation.
It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational
capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives,
something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence
of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful
execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.
Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the
deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is
obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of
gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European
Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have
every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation
with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.
Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy,
using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts
will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States
and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their
long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU
as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter
strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense,
the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign-
policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.
Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events
in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited
Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive
against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to
sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO
escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to
push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third
is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort
to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct
involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives,
setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.
The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it
is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview
with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine
of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic
evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.
This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:
"There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country
is so innocent?"
What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors
of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and
financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred
years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the
concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".
In an
article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing
a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations.
In a passage I wrote:
"Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various
political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative
and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns
in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't
believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference
in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much
in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical
figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al
Qaeda and al Nusra front".
The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent
US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with
the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference
with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington
will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya".
During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always
coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is
becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding
Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation
in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate
article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.
Conclusions and future questions
There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily
Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump
to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences,
bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants
to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration
that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending
spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with
the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.
The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures
of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to
the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby,
the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come
to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay
the price.
" What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."
This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not
find the gumption to continue reading.
The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with
brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even
if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party
would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much
has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of
view.
*** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice
as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War
Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll
back the spectre of "1984".
"... "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power " ..."
Michael Flynn was a seriously dangerous man, and I am very relieved that he will no longer be in
a position of power. But
Damon Linker is absolutely right that the way he was brought down should worry everyone who cares
about the health of American democracy:
Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or
political assassination ) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The
results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.
Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many
Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information
to the press - mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say,
"someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!"
It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone
is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community
are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking
anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified,
unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.
The Eli Lake article that Linker links to is worth reading in full, but I'll pull out a key section
here:
The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely
distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak
as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and
others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president
and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of
American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."
Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the
leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington
Post
reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe.
The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump's presidential campaign
- Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone - are being
investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian
government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia's role in hacking and distributing emails
of leading Democrats before the election.
Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country's propaganda
network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker's bureau for his appearance.
That doesn't look good, but it's also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there
are many unanswered questions about Trump's and his administration's ties to Russia.
But that's all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It's possible that
Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It's also possible
that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking
highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.
Here's the thing: I understand why the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies are behaving
the way they are. It's not just that they are opposed to Trump's policies, or that they have personal
reasons to hate Flynn or Bannon or anybody else on the Trump team. It's that
they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat to national security
because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign power or, at best, extremely
senior people (including the President himself) who flagrantly disregard basic security precautions:
For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president's eyes only, containing enormously
sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump
and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.
Since NSA provides
something
like 80 percent of the actionable intelligence in our government, what's being kept from the
White House may be very significant indeed. However, such concerns are widely shared across the
IC, and NSA doesn't appear to be the only agency withholding intelligence from the administration
out of security fears.
What's going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated
that "since January 20, we've assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM," meaning the
White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president
and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. "There's not much the Russians don't know at
this point," the official added in wry frustration.
None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow
wasn't something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility
until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin,
and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution
and concern.
When the press first started hyperventilating about Russia,
I wrote a
column about how we all needed to calm down - because my concern was that the focus was misplaced,
because Russia isn't the problem:
Russia's alleged actions are
entirely unsurprising and far from unprecedented . They are not only the kind of thing that
Russia has done before, they are the kind of thing that we have done before - including
in Russia's neighborhood
. Russia's actions may well deserve a response - but the most important response would be
to make cyber security a significantly higher priority. They certainly don't merit panic about
Russian intentions, or about the fragility of American institutions.
By contrast, the opacity of Trump's financial relationships does remain a serious problem,
and the possibility that he is personally subject to Russian "influence" because of financial
liabilities held by Russian banks could taint any attempt to improve relations between our countries.
And of course if the Trump campaign actually coordinated with Russia on dirty tricks, that would
be a crime amply deserving investigation, and potentially impeachment.
But at this point, there is no evidence at all of that kind of wrongdoing. That ought to matter.
And it ought to be possible to investigate the possibility of corruption or criminal collusion
without indulging in scaremongering about the Russian threat. Indeed, advocates of a friendlier
relationship with Russia should be the first to call for such scrutiny - because an opening to
Russia will only be durable if the American people believe that it rests on a solid institutional
foundation and genuine mutual interest.
Meanwhile, those arguing that Russia undermined the integrity of the American electoral system
need to take a good look in the mirror. Nothing Russia did or didn't do can come close to the
damage that will potentially be done by exaggerating the extent and impact of that influence,
much less creating a constitutional crisis in response.
Re: "It's that they are genuinely afraid that this administration is functionally a threat
to national security because it contains highly placed individuals actively working for a foreign
power "
Foreign power!? That's rich! A U.S. government who plays the lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows
to the ruthless slave-holders and head choppers in the Middle East. And fronted by a sclerotic,
completely coöpted MSM.
And have Millman or the others who take backhanded swipes at RT ever actually watched any of
its programming? The American produced RT programs (4 or 5 hours a night) have brutally attacked
Trump non-stop, before, during and after the election.
RT Moscow programs SophieCo and World's Apart regularly have guests that represent conventional
(i.e., Russia hating) American/European points of view. When is the last time that a major American
media outlet interviewed a rational thoughtful Russian whose views are aligned with the Russian
government, e.g. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova?
And RT has critically challenged the completely biased propaganda coming out of Syria by the
Western MSM. There is a lot happening behind the Syrian jihadist curtain that the U.S. government
and the toady MSM don't want us to see. If RT does not pose the questions in the West, who will?
Is RT fundamentally biased? Certainly and sometimes crudely so. But that bias was the direct
result of the clumsy, stupid coup that the U.S. fronted by Obama vulgarian stooge Victoria Nuland
engineered in Ukraine.
This holier than thou schtick that the Left is drumming up against Trump and Russia when the
U.S. has been guilty of similar shenanigans and outright criminality for decades is completely
bogus.
Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence
community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy
is supposed to function.
And there is really only one way to avoid such a crisis: for Congress to step up and begin
the necessary investigations of the Trump administration.
Agreed. One of this country's main problems in recent history is congress abdicating its duties.
This neglect leaves more power, and more potential misuse of power, in the hands of the executive.
The only way we can get back to a sense of normal democracy is for Congress to take more responsibility
for this country's actions.
Flynn himself plays lapdog to the Israelis and kowtows to the ruthless slave-owners and the
head-choppers in the Middle East more than anyone, especially by supporting war/regime change
in Iran. It's a good thing he's gone and the Trump administration is better for it (now if only
Trump could stop sucking up to Bibi).
As for "the Left", which part of the Left are you referring to? The "tankie" leftists still
love Putin themselves.
Flynn is indeed a war-monger nut-job. The sad thing is that his apparent replacement is also
another war-monger nut-job, retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward who is a greaser for delivering
weapons systems from American Merchant of Death Lockheed Martin to the slave-holding, head-chopping
Gulf States. The same anti-Iranian Gulf States that are pulverizing Yemen.
It's good to be him
Do any of these Bush/Obama era Pentagon Brass Meatballs have documented evidence that they
actually reported back the huge Clusterf*ck that is the Middle Eastern quagmire that has cost
the taxpayers TRILLIONS?
In other words, Harward is probably just another go-along to get-along militarist crony who
never reported back what he actually saw. I.e., huge amounts of American Green being flushed down
the toilet. And as always, what the heck? It ain't his money
Looks like more ready, fire, aim shenanigans from the Trump Neocon cabal once this latest Navy
Boy "Warrior-Hero" comes aboard to oversee the perpetual American Global Cop stupidity.
Would anyone have demanded an investigation of, say, high-level connections to Saudi Arabia? Would
anyone have characterized Huma Abedin as "Saudi Arabia having ears inside the WH", or Dennis Ross
as "Israel having ears inside the WH"? It's commentary malpractice to write a piece like this
and not at least discuss the weird double standard applied to Russia vs other foreign powers.
So Noah Millman wants to bring down the elected Trump Presidency, and sides with the Deep State
patriots? That's what impression this leaves me with. A whole lot of people don't have much love
for voting and democracy anymore. And this mad Russophobia is MyCarthy Dementia 2.0.
Motives do matter when considering how to frame a story based on leaks. For instance, Snowden's
motives were highly important when evaluating his disclosures, which is both why the government
and his advocates were so at pains to characterize them either good or bad. They and others have
spent at least as much effort as publishing the contents, putting both them and the consequences
in context.
The control of information is an exercise in power. It would be foolish not to consider what
the leaker intends to accomplish by selectively leaking, whether or not the exercise is one of
manipulation of public opinion rather than informing the public, and whether or not it is actually
in service of the truth without that context.
A consequence of the full take of collect it all in regards to everyone's communication is
that such a trove about everyone's lives makes a universal blackmail possible by Deep State actors,
a kind of veto power over all lives and all politics.
I am cautious about this particular opinion, because it treads very close to political biases
to have "gotten" Flynn whom he deeply disagreed with, leading him to err on the side of praising
politicized secret intelligence state leakers who have zero interest, unlike Snowden, in public
accountability.
With gerrymandering and dark money, thanks to Citizen's United, and a continuing dilution of representation
thanks to the fixed number of Congressional reps in a growing population, Congress is unable to/given
up its role as a check to the power of the Executive branch. Civilian soldiers in the bureaucracy
are now making choices, right or wrong, to salvage what's left of the Republic.
Sadly we cannot trust senators and congressmen to place duty above partisanship, or more to the
point, country above partisanship. So with possible traitors in the White House and congress controlled
by the same party, the leakers only real option is to leak.
We need the leakers to keep at it, and the press to keep digging, so that together they can
empower the public to do the right thing, as this will not get a proper investigation unless the
public forces it. And even then the GOP is likely to try to hide as much of it as they can behind
the curtain of "national security."
As I understand it those who are doing the leaking are risking both careers and liberty to
do so. I hope for the country's sake they can get everything else they have out to the press before
they can be shut down.
The aspects of this that fall outside the executive branch should be considered more of a "partisanship
crisis" than a constitutional crisis. Maybe down the line the public can force a couple of follow
up investigations: "What did Jason Chaffetz know and when did he know it." Maybe Comey too.
I am glad Flynn is gone mainly because his views on Iran were nuts and dangerous. His apparent
support for rapprochement with Russia is a point in his favor.
The real problem with the military-security-industrial complex targeting an executive branch
figure who threatens our national interests is that it is NOT the Deep State's job to determine
what our national interests are.
In reality, it is very much in the national interest of the United States to have normal, correct
state-to-state relations with both Russia and Iran, cooperating with each of them in the many
areas where our interests converge, and not demonizing or destabilizing either of those regimes.
The Deep State is obsessed with demonizing both Iran and Russia, meanwhile propagating the
fantastic lie that the militant Sunni Muslim regimes and militias around the Middle East are our
"moderates" or even our "allies." This insanity needs to stop, and the elected branches of government
have every right and duty to stop it.
Yesterday Bill Kristol tweeted that "if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."
This confirms everything Shadia Drury says about the East Coast Straussians. If you haven't read
her book–the first book-length critique of the ideas of Leo Strauss–do so now if you want to hit
back against the deep state and its "deep" Straussianism.
David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Obama neocon holdovers in the administration.
This is a really powerful astute, first class analysis of the situation:
Flynn's Gone But They're Still Gunning For You, Donald
== quote ==
... ... ...
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor
to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly
specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted
conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration,
and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance
operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto,
smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics.
But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other
means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only
be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government
machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big
problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is
bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts
to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to
American democracy and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper
intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates
was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember
the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there
for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of
Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring
conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any
credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas
Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the
Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political
opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the
Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing
illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release
of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting
gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American
citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national
security council director-designate, Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered,
on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November
4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman,
and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan
Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize
the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling
report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence
director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House
imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following
Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter,
the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake
of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
"... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
"... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
"... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
"... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
"... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
"... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
"... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
"... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
"... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
"... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
"... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
"... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
"... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
"... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect
William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure
fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before
getting felled by pneumonia.
And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness
for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized
in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old
general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:
Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year
and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.
That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison
gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather
wearing neither hat nor coat.
That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited
by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.
General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition
to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged
by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy
machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.
Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance
from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a
"traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to
need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.
In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington
Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.
But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster
about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we
shall amplify momentarily.
But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio
is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy
as a private citizen.
It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with
the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:
'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political
grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said in a press release.
Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too.
The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.
And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting
a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential
peace overture to the Russians:
Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian
ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said
to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate
Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed
by somebody to do it?"
We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger.
But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts"
mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter
of course.
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already
announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging,"
albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at
the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic
pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with
envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against
potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even
Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations.
Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the
leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and
The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do,
it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind
to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated
by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and
self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal
leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we
have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told
The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his
phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee
knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using
its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election
nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy
and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and
a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition
research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of
Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping,
listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported
what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee.
What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future
Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in
The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits
of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With
the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted
call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution
under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in
order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French
government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based
on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did
day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale
secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political
adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about
Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar
with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about
Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January
1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did
not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the
outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the
transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the
leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate,
Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described
'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan,
not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser,
Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who
in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary
because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever
of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a
sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA
Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated
in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course,
was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat
lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and
"assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a
handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would
be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly
about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would
not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted
that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas
Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the
War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will
literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ...
poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!
Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt.
Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!
Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even
though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent
(her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be
corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration,
discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone.
Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information
which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's
presidency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton
during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment
overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of
illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party
operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount
fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary"
county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The
integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There
were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes
to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter
fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.
Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner
and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy
him."
Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action
sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then,
both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time
he had to know if something was up.
The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.
I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden.
If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will
look even more stupid and Fake.
The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents /
Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal
Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then
regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model,
De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep
State Mirror Government.
All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large,
former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.
It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.
It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.
Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list.
That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.
I've been getting that same
feeling of late: that
events are near spinning out
of control as the
accusations and projections
know no bounds. The more
stupid the charge the more
weight it carries.
Because neither of the financial hegemony's choices, Jeb Bush
nor Hillary Clinton, were elected.
Now, they are adlibbing
and only the most stupid, most poorly informed, most
rightwing types who believe themselves to be either "liberal"
or "conservative" are believing Fake News.
"... "There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office. ..."
"... Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important . They had 8 years, they didn't do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination. ..."
"... Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government . You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump's position, so it just festers more leaks. ..."
"... If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn't they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left." ..."
"... "it makes it that much more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the phones, in this case General Flynn, it's going to be much harder to find the perpetrator." ..."
"... " President Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this ." ..."
Obama is responsible for the soft coup that is now underway in the United States.
American attorney and Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice
(ACLJ), Jay Sekulow explains why Barack Obama
is the reason
the
"shadow government" is now openly trying to overthrow President Trump, and why
leaks are now being disseminated.
According to civil right expert and prominent First Amendement Supreme Court
lawyer,
Jay
Sekulow
, what the agencies did by leaking the Trump Administration
information was not only illegal but "almost becomes a soft coup", one which
was spurred by the last minute rule-change by Obama, who intentionally made it
far easier for leaks to propagate, and next to impossible to catch those
responsible for the leaks.
This is his explanation:
"There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from
president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used
to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered
this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the
president was leaving the office.
Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left
in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so
important
. They had 8 years, they didn't do it, number one. Number
two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to
Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama
administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they
determine dissemination.
Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the
way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the
Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the
raw data
and what that does is almost creates a shadow government
.
You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump's position,
so it just festers more leaks.
If they had a justification for this, wonderful,
why didn't they
do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left."
One potential answer: they knew they had a "smoking gun", and were working
to make it easier to enable the information to be "leaked" despite the clearly
criminal consequences of such dissemination.
As this point Hannity correctly points out,
"it makes it that much
more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if
they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the
phones, in this case General Flynn, it's going to be much harder to find the
perpetrator."
Sekulow confirms, noting that back when only the NSA had access to this kind
of raw data, there would be a very small amount of people who have access to
this kind of data. "But this change in the Obama Administration was so
significant that they allowed dissemination to 16 other agencies, and we wonder
why there's leaks."
The lawyer's conclusion:
"
President
Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this
."
The most grounded fears about a
Donald Trump presidency have always involved incompetence
rather than malevolence, the perils of a catastrophically
weak presidency rather than the prospect of a
near-dictatorship.
So far many of these fears are being vindicated. Trump's
policy rollouts have been botched, his appointments
mismanaged, his White House is a feuding mess, his
legislative agenda is lost in the fog. He's in wars with the
press, the intelligence community, the bureaucracy and the
courts, and he isn't obviously winning any of them.
But those of us who feared a flailing Trump administration
didn't fear it for its own sake. We feared the second-order
consequences - global instability, domestic unrest, constant
economic jitters.
There are hints of the first in North Korea's missile test
and various Russian maneuvers, signs of the second in the
spasms of anti-Trump protest since Election Day.
But the third is nowhere to be seen. While political
journalists and Washington hands freak out daily over the
Trump presidency, the stock market keeps acting like
everything is fine, or better than fine, or even (if you
will) just great again.
A growing economy is compatible with creeping
authoritarianism, of course, as Trump's most alarmist critics
are fond of pointing out. But is it compatible with
outrageous presidential incompetence, with a White House that
can't hit a target with a Super Soaker from six inches away?
That's what we'll find out. In effect, the Trump era is
pitting the wisdom of one elite crowd against the wisdom of
another - the crowd of D.C. politicos against the herd of
brokers and analysts and financiers just an Acela ride away.
It's the crowd of experts that totally failed to predict the
rise of Trump against the crowd of experts that managed to
miss the biggest financial meltdown since the Great
Depression.
The best case for the Wall Street perspective runs as
follows: Most presidents have less power over the economy
than one might assume from presidential campaigns and voter
expectations. If this is true of administrations whose
carefully calibrated economic programs have all the weight of
wonkery behind them, why shouldn't it be true of
administrations that find themselves unable to accomplish
much of anything? If what matters is the fundamentals, and
his White House is more likely to be balked and baffled than
frenetically transformative, why not just bet those
fundamentals and assume you'll win?
There is historical evidence for this proposition, in the
sense that the link between political and economic crises is
more uncertain than direct. The financial crisis struck at a
low ebb in George W. Bush's effectiveness, but the Great
Depression hit with a popular and (at that point) famously
competent Herbert Hoover at the helm. The political turmoil
of the late 1960s coincided with low unemployment rates and
strong G.D.P. growth. Watergate was rough on the stock
market, but the Clinton impeachment, not so much, and markets
mostly weathered the gridlock and debt-ceiling brinksmanship
of the Obama years. If Trump is impotent or if he's
impeached, there is precedent for the markets simply
shrugging, for the economy to keep chugging right along.
However: This argument assumes that Trump's level of
incompetence stays within at least hailing distance of normal
bounds, and/or that no crisis comes unlooked-for that the
Trump White House fumbles into something much, much worse.
Gridlock in Washington need not damage the economy, but a
botched response to terrorism, a mismanagement of the next
Ebola, or a buffoonish response to financial hiccups could be
a different matter. So, too, with a Watergate-level
constitutional crisis, a civilian-military conflict, and so
on down a list of all-too-plausible Trump-era tests.
It is possible we will pass four years without such a
test. (Eight is tougher, but let's not get ahead of
ourselves.) And the investor class's bet, right now, is that
if you combine the chances of avoiding a major test entirely,
the chances of the Trump White House somehow finding its
footing, and the chances that Trump semi-accidentally handles
his biggest test O.K., you get a probability high enough to
justify betting on continued prosperity and growth instead of
freaking out about the daily White House meltdowns.
Except probably it's not really that rational and calculated;
it's animal spirits and all that. But then again,
irrationality cuts both ways: As the economist and columnist
Tyler Cowen likes to point out, if political observers were
really so confident in our alarm, we would all be dumping our
portfolios (or at least buying put options, or trying to set
up a big Trump short). ...
Trump doomsayers miss a money-making opportunity
http://bv.ms/2jihOW5
via @Bloomberg - Jan 11
It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage
covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
Lookups for
ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of
the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his
campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated
with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
"Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone
call to Russia in years."
- cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017
Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of
both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions
had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.
The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance
of subterfuge
.
Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National
Security Adviser
https://nyti.ms/2lo3mNK
NYT - PETER BAKER - February 20, 2017
WASHINGTON - President Trump picked Lt. Gen. H.R.
McMaster, a widely respected military strategist, as his new
national security adviser on Monday, calling him "a man of
tremendous talent and tremendous experience."
Mr. Trump made the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago getaway
in Palm Beach, Fla., where he has been interviewing
candidates to replace Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out
after withholding information from Vice President Mike Pence
about a call with Russia's ambassador.
The choice continued Mr. Trump's reliance on high-ranking
military officers to advise him on national security. Mr.
Flynn was a retired three-star general and Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis is a retired four-star general. His first choice
to replace Mr. Flynn, who turned the job down, and two other
finalists were current or former senior officers as well.
Shortly before announcing his appointment, Mr. Trump wrote
on Twitter: "Meeting with Generals at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Very interesting!"
General McMaster is seen as one of the Army's leading
intellectuals, first making a name for himself with a searing
critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for their performance
during the Vietnam War and later criticizing the way
President George W. Bush's administration went to war in
Iraq.
As a commander, he was credited with demonstrating how a
different counterterrorism strategy could defeat insurgents
in Iraq, providing the basis for the change in approach that
Gen. David H. Petraeus adopted to shift momentum in a war
that the United States was on the verge of losing.
It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage
covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
Lookups for
ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of
the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his
campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated
with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
"Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone
call to Russia in years."
- cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017
Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of
both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions
had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.
The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance
of subterfuge
.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
As you are the most active promoter of color
revolution against Trump in this blog, and definitely read a
lot about his issue, I would like to ask you: are we close to
the stage when a false flag operation against Trump (like
shooting of protesters) will be deployed, or not yet ?
For the list of a typical signs of color revolution see,
for example,
"Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to
have the knowledge to avoid being drawn into supporting such
a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is
about democracy and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has
outlined the 12 steps of regime change.
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S.
making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve
the powers that be.
The 12 steps are:
1. Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as
students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the
target country
2. Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the
guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human
rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals
3. Attract local traitors, especially academics,
politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or
threaten those who have some stain in their life
4. If the target country has unions, bribe them
5. Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution.
Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution
(Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003),
Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine
2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab
Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
6. Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the
revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government
corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an
excuse will do.
7. Write protest signs and banners in English to let
Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians
involved.
8. Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and
union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with
grievances to join
9. The US and European mainstream media help by
continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by
injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
10. When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag
action. The target government will soon be destabilized and
lose support among its people
11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the
police to use force. This will cause the target government to
lose the support of other countries and become
"delegitimized" by the international community
12. Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so
that the target government will face the threat of economic
sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed
rebel uprising
"... Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country ..."
"... Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals ..."
"... Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do ..."
"... The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority ..."
"... When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people ..."
"... Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising ..."
"... What the FBI/deep state did to Flynn and 3 other private US citizens was unthinkable before Obama and his DNC! ..."
"... My team USA is not run by neoliberal neocons running an illicit deep state. ..."
"... Newspapers hires only hacks who must display Trump Derangement Syndrome like poor pk to be printed and paid. ..."
As you are the most active promoter of color revolution against Trump in this blog, and definitely
read a lot about his issue, I would like to ask you: are we close to the stage when a false flag
operation against Trump (like shooting of protesters) will be deployed, or not yet ?
For the list of a typical signs of color revolution see, for example,
"Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being
drawn into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about
democracy and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but
in America itself to serve the powers that be.
The 12 steps are:
1. Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers,
businessmen, reporters to the target country
2. Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism
to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals
3. Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through
bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
4. If the target country has unions, bribe them
5. Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968),
Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution
(Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution,
Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
6. Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human
rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse
will do.
7. Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians
and civilians involved.
8. Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and
call upon all people with grievances to join
9. The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution
is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
10. When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government
will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people
11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause
the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by
the international community
12. Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government
will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel
uprising
The Kremlin is starting to worry about Donald Trump
http://read.bi/2l25rQD via @Business
Insider - Feb 17
... Russian policymakers, obsessed as they are with the fear of "color revolutions," may
understand better than Americans and Europeans the radical nature of the political change that
has descended on Washington. ...
Still, can you please try to answer the question posted: How close are we to the standard for
color revolutions false flag operation in which "unidentified gunmen" shoot unarmed protesters
from rooftops and the incident is blamed on Trump supporters.
I can only guess who are the members of your "team USA". With your jingoism and anti-Russian stance,
I assume that they include such people:
Charles Krauthammer
David Frum
Douglas Feith
John McCain
Lindsey Graham
Michael Ledeen
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Robert Kagan
Samantha Power
Scooter Libby
Susan Rice
Victoria Nuland
... ... ...
If so, you are in good company... Don't forget to buy M16, ammunition and tickets to Syria.
We probably will be able to survive without your posts for some time.
It's worth noting that Mr Trump's major hometown newspaper, and the major papers in Boston, Washington,
LA & elsewhere are Seriously Concerned about his presidency.
That in itself is unsettling, and
that is perhaps all there is to it. TV news outlets, except for Fox & MSNBC, make some effort
at neutrality, it seems.
> "It's worth noting that Mr Trump's major hometown newspaper, and the major papers in Boston,
Washington, LA & elsewhere are Seriously Concerned
about his presidency."
Yes, I agree that it is worth noting. See p.3 and 9 in the 12 points list above.
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace cautioned his colleagues and the network's viewers Sunday that
President Donald Trump's latest attack on the media had gone too far.
''Look, we're big boys. We criticize presidents. They want to criticize us back, that's fine,''
Wallace said Sunday morning on ''Fox & Friends.'' ''But when he said that the fake news media
is not my enemy, it's the enemy of the American people, I believe that crosses an important line.''
The ''Fox & Friends'' anchors had shown a clip of Trump recounting that past presidents, including
Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, had fought with the press. They then asked Wallace whether
Trump's fraught relationship with the media was a big deal.
In response, Wallace told his colleagues that Jefferson had also once written the following:
''And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''
Context was important, Wallace said. All presidents fight with the media, but Trump had taken
it a step further in making them out to be ''the enemy,'' he added. ...
(Trump is very pugnacious, clearly, and will
not allow the media to have the last word, ever.)
"... In other words, for the first time, the concept of a " soft palace coup" has been officially brought up on public media; we expect such speculation will only get louder. ..."
In fact,
The
Atlantic's David Frum joked
after the election, "Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. Article 4. We're all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months
ahead."
So, what's Article 4 to the 25th Amendment?
In the abstract, the amendment itself is
about presidential succession, and includes language about the power of the office when
a president is incapacitated. But
Digby
recently highlighted the specific text of growing relevance:
"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal
officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law
provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately
assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
What does that mean exactly?
Well, it means
Congress isn't the only institution that can remove a
president from office between elections
. Under the 25th Amendment, a sitting
vice president and a majority of the executive branch's cabinet could, on their own,
agree to transfer power out of the hands of a sitting president. At that point, those
officials would notify Congress, and the vice president would assume the office as the
acting president.
And what if the challenged president wasn't on board with the plan to remove him/her
from the office? According to a recent
explainer
,
"If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it
would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote
. A two-thirds majority
in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that
threshold isn't reached, the president would regain his powers." All of this comes up in
fiction from time to time, and in all likelihood, Americans will probably never see this
political crisis play out in real life. And that's probably a good thing: by all
appearances, the intended purpose of the constitutional provision was to address a
president with a serious ailment – say, a stroke, for example – in which he or she is
alive, but unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
In other words, for the first time, the concept of a "
soft palace coup"
has
been officially brought up on public media; we expect such speculation will only get
louder.
"... A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros. Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in his article ..."
"... George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson. An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it: ..."
"... Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago ; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation - all funded in part by Mr. Soros - descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month. ..."
"... Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros. ..."
"Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being drawn
into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about democracy
and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the
12 steps of regime change .
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in
America itself to serve the powers that be.The 12 steps are:
Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen,
reporters to the target country
Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight
for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals
Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through
bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
If the target country has unions, bribe them
Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968),
Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon,
2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring
and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights,
democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will
do .
Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians
and civilians involved
Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call
upon all people with grievances to join
The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution
is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon
be destabilized and lose support among its people
Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force . This will cause the
target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international
community
Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face
the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising
A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to
home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid
color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros.
Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in
his article
With tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest Donald Trump's presidential
election victory, questions are swirling about whether the anger is as organic as advertised.
... observers online are claiming that, in some cases, protesters were bussed to the scenes
- a telltale sign of coordination . "Anti-Trump protesters in Austin today are not as organic
as they seem," one local in the Texas capitol tweeted Wednesday, along with photos offered
as evidence.
George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting
on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson.
An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it:
It should also be noted that the Open Society Institute, one of Soros' main NGOs,
has worked closely with Mayor Rawlings-Blake and Google in making Baltimore one of their "test
cities" for smart technology and new fiber cables. Rawlings-Blake has had pleasant things to say
about Soros in the past.
While the above information addresses the involvement of #blacklivesmatter groups and similar
organizations active on the ground inside Ferguson as a matter of historical precedent, these
organizations and similar operations such as the
Black Youth
Project (
funded by Soros ) and the Open Society Institute and its subsidiaries have had a sizeable
presence
inside Baltimore in the time leading up to the Freddie Gray protests and continue to do so
as we speak.
The article mentions that in Ferguson buses were also used to bring protesters in from outside:
Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in
Chicago ; from the
Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners,
the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the
Gamaliel
Foundation - all funded in part by
Mr. Soros -
descended on Ferguson
starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last
month.
All were aimed at keeping the media's attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident
to focus on interrelated causes - not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives
that were highlighted by the news media in August.
So when Hillary, with her serial rapist husband at her side, came to give her speech the day after
her defeat, she may just have given the signal to begin a "purple revolution":
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly
into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands
of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were
both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented.
Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America"
and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as
is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international
hedge fund tycoon George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton
Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution"
in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push
back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama.
The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style
street protests and political disruption.
One could speculate that the rage Hillary Clinton displayed over having lost is what is being expressed
through her supporters in the form of a massive tantrum. Even if that is so, at a different level
forces are at work to steer the ship back under the control of the establishment and the ruling elite.
The whole narrative of U.S. color revolutions, astutely pinned down and shown on Chinese television,
can be seen below:
See also
Whitehouse The level of grilling was unprecedented. Compare with Obama press conferences,
which were as if taken from the USSR with presidents answers the question that he himself wrote.
You can be amazing at the art of making an elephant out of a fly that those presscorp honchos demonstrate.
Such a talented presstitutes.
Notable quotes:
"... One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. ..."
"... We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected. ..."
"... They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries. ..."
"... And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media. ..."
"... Aggressively pursue the sources who leaked. ..."
"... Trump: We are. ..."
"... Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks, those are criminal leaks. ..."
"... But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East? ..."
"... Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. ..."
"... But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean, you have a lower approval rate than congress. ..."
"... Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network. ..."
"... If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day. ..."
"... I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal. ..."
"... Because it would be easier to be tough on Russian than make a deal. ..."
"... If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. ..."
"... But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave? ..."
...We have to talk about it to find out what's going ... because the press, honestly, is out of
control. The level of dishonesty is out of control. I ran for president to represent the citizens
of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities
well. I am talking and really talking on this very entrenched power structure, and what we're doing
is we're talking about the power structure, we're talking about its entrenchment. As a result, the
media is going through what they have to go through to, oftentimes, distort -- not all the time,
and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say, they're honest and fantastic, but much of it is
not. The distortion -- and we'll talk about it, you will be able to ask me questions about it --
but we're not going to let it happen because I'm here to take our message straight to the people.
... ... ...
On foreign affairs, we've already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders,
much of it you've covered, to move forward toward stability, security and peace in the most troubled
regions of the world, which there are many. We've had great conversations with the United Kingdom
and meetings, Israel, Mexico, Japan, China and Canada, really, really productive conversations. I
would say far more productive than you would understand. We've even developed a new council with
Canada to promote women's business leaders and entrepreneurs. Very important to me. Very important
to my daughter Ivanka.
I've directed our defense community headed by our great general now Secretary Mattis, he's over
there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the
murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world, used to be a small group, now
it's in large sections of the world. They've spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer. Another
mess I inherited, and we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran who has totally taken advantage
of our previous administration, and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism, and we're not going
to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it's not properly solved now. It's one of the
worst agreements I've ever seen drawn by anybody. I've ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding
of the United States military.
Had great support from the Senate. I've had great support from congress, generally. We've pursued
this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you, that
is my -- I would be so happy if we never had to use it, but our country will never have had a military
like this military we're about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on Earth in our
military, but they don't have the right equipment, and their equipment is old. I used it, I talked
about it at every step. Depleted. It's depleted. It won't be depleted for long. I think one of the
reasons I'm standing here instead of other people is that, frankly, I talked about it, we have to
have a strong military. We have to have strong law enforcement, also. So we do not go abroad in the
search of war. We really are searching for peace, but it's peace through strength.
At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a
scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I'm keeping my promises to the American
people. These are campaign promises. Some people are so surprised that we're having strong borders.
Well, that's what I have been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised.
Oh, having strong borders. Well, that's what I have been talking about to the press and to everybody
else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They
lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't
popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and
pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to
many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing.
... ... ...
We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited
approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment,
roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in
for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of
dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected.
They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take
years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we
want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries.
... ... ...
We've imposed a hiring freeze on non-essential federal workers. We've imposed a temporary moratorium
on new federal regulations.
We've issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations
must be eliminated. Makes sense. Nobody's ever seen regulations like we have. You go to other countries
and you look at industries they have, and you say, let me see your regulations, and they're a fraction,
just a tiny fraction of what we have. And I want regulations because I want safety, I want environmental
-- all environmental situations to be taken properly care of, it's very important to me, but you
don't need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.
We've stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure
they are protected from crimes of violence. We've directed the creation of a task force for reducing
violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation -- take a look at Chicago and others
-- taking place right now in our inner cities. Horrible. We've ordered the Department of Homeland
Security and Justice to coordinate a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States
with drugs. We're becoming a drug-infested nation. Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars, and
we're not going to let it happen any longer.
We've undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation
and our tax dollars safe and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the
southern border. Met with general now Secretary Kelly yesterday, and we're starting that process,
and the wall is going to be a great wall, and it's going to be a wall negotiated by me. The price
is going to come down just like it has on everything else I've negotiated for the government, and
we're going to have a wall that works. We're not going to have a wall like now which is either non-existent
or a joke.
We've ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that
harbor criminal aliens and we've ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border,
no more release. No matter who you are, release. We've begin a nationwide effort to remove criminal
aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American
lives every single day. The court system has not made it easy for us. We've even created a new office
in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of
which there are many.
... ... ...
They were with me a week ago. You were here. General Motors committed likewise to invest billions
of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave.
And if I didn't get elected, believe me, they would have left, and these jobs and these things that
I am announcing would never have come here. Intel just announced it will move ahead with a new plant
in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with, and that will result in at least so
-- in at least 10,000 American jobs. Wal-Mart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United
States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. There will be many, many more.
Many more. These are a few that we're naming. Other countries have been taking advantage of us for
decades -- decades and decades and decades, folks -- and we're not going to let that happen anymore,
not going to let it happen.
... ... ...
Trump: Mike Flynn is a fine person. I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is
a man who, there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence who is with us
today, and I was not happy with the way that information was given. He didn't have to do that because
what he did wasn't wrong. What he did in terms of the information he saw, what was wrong was the
way other people including yourselves in this room were given that information, because that was
classified information that was given illegally. That's the real problem. And you can talk all you
want about Russia, which is all a, you know, fake news fabricated deal to try to make up for the
loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that
were supposedly involved with this but they know nothing about it. They never made a phone call to
Russia, they never received a phone call, it's all fake news. It's all fake news. The nice thing
is I see it starting to turn where people are now looking at the illegal -- I think it's very important
-- the illegal giving out classified information. And let me just tell you, it was given out, like,
so much. I'll give you an example. I called, as you know, Mexico. It was a very confidential, classified
call, but I called Mexico, and, in calling Mexico, I figured, well -- I spoke to the president of
Mexico, had a good call, and all of a sudden it's out for the world to see. It's supposed to be secret.
It's supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case. Same thing with Australia. All
of a sudden, people are finding out exactly what took place. The same thing happened with respect
to general Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I'm saying -- the first thing I thought of when I heard
about this is how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know
why? Because it's an [inaudible] process and the press should be ashamed of themselves, but more
importantly the people who gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves.
Really ashamed.
... ... ...
The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they're
there, because we have our new people going in place right now, as you know -- Mike Pompeo has now
taken control of the CIA, James Comey at F.B.I. Dan Coates is waiting to be approved, I mean,
he is a senator and a highly with respected one and waiting the to be approved, and our new people
are going in. And just while you're at it, The Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost
as disgraceful as the failing New York Times story yesterday, and it talked about -- this is front
page. So Director of National Intelligence just put out a statement, any suggestion that the United
States intelligence community -- this was just given to us -- is withholding information and not
providing the the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not
true. So they took this front-page story out of The Wall Street Journal, top, and they just wrote
the story that it's not true.
And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and
I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media.
I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest. But I will say that I never
get phone calls from the media. How do they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal like
that without asking me? Or how do they write a story in The New York Times put it on the front page.
Like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big story, and it was nasty. Then they
called and said, we never said that, we like Mr. President Trump. They called my office, we like
Mr. Trump, we never said that. And they totally disrespected those very wonderful women, I have to
tell you, totally disrespected. I said give us a retraction. They never gave us a retraction and
I, frankly, went on to other things. Go ahead.
... ... ...
Reporter: Can you tell us in determining Michael Flynn did no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence
was weighed? Did you ask for transcripts of the telephone intercepts -- (inaudible) -- Aggressively
pursue the sources who leaked.
Trump: We are.
... ... ...
Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge
of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks,
those are criminal leaks. They're put out by people either in agencies -- I think you will see
it stopping because now we have our people and, you know, again, we don't have our people in because
we can't get them approved by the Senate. We just had Jeff Sessions approved, just as an example.
So we are looking into that very seriously. It's a criminal act. You know what I say, when I was
called out on Mexico, I was shocked, because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment.
When I was called out on Mexico, I was -- honestly, I was really, really surprised. But I said, you
know it doesn't make sense, that won't happen. But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine,
I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man,
by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens
when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East?
Are you folks going to be reporting all that very, very confidential information, very important,
very -- you know, at the highest level? Are you going to be reporting about that, too? So I don't
want classified information getting out into the public in a way that was almost a test. So I'm dealing
with Mexico, I'm dealing with Argentina. We were dealing in this case with Mike Flynn. All this information
gets put into The Washington Post and The New York Times, and I'm saying, what's going to happen
when I'm dealing on the Middle East? What's going to happen when I'm dealing with really, really
important subjects like North Korea? We've got to stop it. That's why it's a criminal penalty. Yes,
John?
Trump: Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported
them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The
news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do, and
I hope we can correct it, because there is nobody I have respect for -- well, maybe a little bit
-- but than good reporters. It's very important to me and especially in this position. Very important.
I don't mind a bad story.
I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it's true. You
know, over the course of time, I'll make mistakes and, you'll write, badly, and I'm OK with that,
but I'm not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN. It's so much anger and hatred and just the hatred
-- I don't watch it anymore because it's very good -- he's saying no. It's OK Jim, you will have
your chance. But I watch others, too. You're not the only one, so don't feel badly.
But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how
good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean,
you have a lower approval rate than congress. I think that's right. I don't know, Peter, is that
one right? Because, you know, I think they have lower -- I heard lower than congress.
But, honestly,
the public would appreciate it I would appreciate it -- again, I don't mind bad stories when it's
true, but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult. I think we're
setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. The numbers are crazy
when I'm looking. Some of them were approved immediately, but we still have a lot of people we're
waiting for. That's all they're doing is delaying.
You look at Schumer and the mess he's got over there and they have nothing going. The only thing
they can do is delay. I think they would be better served by approving and making sure they're happy
and everybody is good. Sometimes, I know President Obama lost three or four and you lose them on
the way and that's OK, that's fine, but I think they would be much better served, John, if they just
went through the process quickly.
This is pure delay tactics, and they say it and everybody understands
it. Go ahead.
... ... ...
Jim Acosta: They don't hate you, sir.
Trump:Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at
that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news
is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and
venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network.
Now, I will say
this -- I watch it, I see it, I'm amazed by it, and I just think you would be a lot better off, I
honestly do -- the public gets it. When I go to rallies, they turn around and start screaming at
CNN, they want to show their placards at CNN. I think you would do much better by being different.
But just take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening. If a guest comes out and
says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually
having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the
way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day.
... ... ...
Reporter: Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?
Trump: No, I don't think so. I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore
because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal.
I can't believe I'm
saying I'm a politician but I guess that's what I am now. Because it would be easier to be tough
on Russian than make a deal.
I don't know if we'll make a deal. We might, might not. But it would
be easier for me -- the tougher I am on Russia, the better. I want to do the right thing for the
American people. I want to do the right thing for the world.
If Russia and the United States actually
got together and got along, don't forget, we're very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's
no upside. We're very powerful nuclear country. I've been briefed, I can tell you one thing about
briefing that we're allowed to say, anybody that read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust
would be like no other. They are very powerful nuclear country, so are we.
If we have a good relationship
with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
... ... ...
Trump: They all happened recently. I understand what they're doing. Because they're doing the
same thing. Now, again, maybe I'm not going to be able to do a deal but at least I will have tried.
I don't, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump?
Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK.
But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a
deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They
say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You
know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave?
Reporter: I just hoping we could get yes or no answer involving Russia. Can you say whether you
are aware whether anyone who advised your campaign had contact with Russia during the course of the
election?
Trump: I told you general Flynn obviously was dealing so that's one person. As he should have been.
Reporter: During the election?
Trump: Nobody that I know of.
Reporter: Not aware of any contact during the course of the election.
Trump: How many times do I have to answer this question But Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to
do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia.
Not that I wouldn't, I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice, he called me on the
election, I told you this. He called me on the inauguration, a few days ago. We had a very good talk.
Especially the second one, lasted for pretty long period of time. I'm sure you probably get it because
it was classified so I'm sure everybody in this room perhaps has it? We have very, very good talk.
I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. Now people knew he was a consultant over in that part of the world
for awhile, but not for Russia. I think he repped Ukraine or people that -- whoever. But people knew
that. Everybody knew that.
Reporter: In the capacity as your campaign manager was he in touch with Russian officials?
Trump: You know what, he said, no. I can only tell you -- now, he was replaced long before the election,
you know that, right? He was replaced long before the election. When all of this stuff started coming
out it came out during the election, Paul Manafort who is a good man, also, by the way, Paul was
replaced long before the election took place. He's only there for a short period of time. How much
long should we stay here folks? Five more minutes is that OK? Five? Wait, let's see -- I want to
find a friendly reporter. Are you a friendly reporter? Watch out -- watch how friendly he is. Go
ahead.
... ... ...
Trump: I'm working on it. Look, just so you understand. We had a totally divided country for eight
years and long before that, in all fairness to President Obama, long before President Obama, we have
had a very divided -- I didn't come along and divide this country. This country was seriously divided.
We are going to work on it very hard one of the question that was asked, very good question about
inner cities, that's part of it. But we're going to work on education, we're going to work on --
going to stop -- try to stop the crime, great law enforcement officials. We're not going to try to
-- we're going to stop crime. But it's very important to me. But this isn't Donald Trump that divided
a nation.
We went eight years with President Obama and we went many years before President Obama. We lived
in a divided nation. And I am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. I
want to thank everybody very much. It's a great honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
President Trump has been in office for one month. I don't recall a lot of
noise with Barry's first 30 days other than the ooohhs and aaahhs from the presser's. So, with all
due respect, its not unreasonable to give the POTUS some slack while he's trying to form a cabinet
in what looks like an unprecedented hostile environment with the losing side.
Regarding "our debt based economic system"...the ponzi scheme, an accurate term to describe the
Federal Reserve, consider that come April, there will be three vacancies on the FED's seven member
Board of Governors. It is Trumps perogative to fill them.
In 2018, Both Yellen's and her Vice Chairman's leadership terms expire.
Trump's appointments will make up the majority of the FED's Board of Governors which is responsible
for regulating the banksters and making the nation's monetary policy. Lastly, I can't remember the
last time I heard a sitting president express views regarding the need to address the burdens that
the FED's policiies have had on american busininess and american workers suggesting the FED's bad
financial deals made with global bankers are without transparency, accountability, or the authority
to do so. Much to be done, much to be seen. Meanwhile, ease up a bit, this is more than cleaning
up a messy kitchen sink.
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask
yourself if are living in a modern incarnation police state. The swamp lost part of the power and
fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what
it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of
democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against
Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard
scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National
Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against
Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color
revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The
sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the
Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents
per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming
that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire
their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a
Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to
block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so
mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by
partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are
screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment
to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the
middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources
drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more
power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we
are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking
our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and
scheming against us.
The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people.
Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the
national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment
wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part
of the Swamp to be drained.
Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people
have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after
our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law
and order.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
Flynn could have said something
"inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted
under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument
would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running
a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing
party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
"... A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros. Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in his article ..."
"... George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson. An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it: ..."
"... Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago ; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation - all funded in part by Mr. Soros - descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month. ..."
"... Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros. ..."
"Forewarned is forearmed", so it might be a good idea to have the knowledge to avoid being drawn
into supporting such a 'revolution', which contrary to what it proclaims, never is about democracy
and justice. The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the
12 steps of regime change .
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in
America itself to serve the powers that be.The 12 steps are:
Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen,
reporters to the target country
Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight
for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals
Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through
bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
If the target country has unions, bribe them
Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968),
Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon,
2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring
and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights,
democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will
do .
Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians
and civilians involved
Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call
upon all people with grievances to join
The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution
is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon
be destabilized and lose support among its people
Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force . This will cause the
target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international
community
Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face
the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising
A number of the steps could be skipped, because the infrastructure is already in place due to
home-ground advantage. Unlike in Russia, where a number of NGOs have been banned precisely to avoid
color revolutions, NGOs are everywhere in the U.S. and not least those sponsored by George Soros.
Move.org is one such and as Harrison Koehli noted in
his article
With tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest Donald Trump's presidential
election victory, questions are swirling about whether the anger is as organic as advertised.
... observers online are claiming that, in some cases, protesters were bussed to the scenes
- a telltale sign of coordination . "Anti-Trump protesters in Austin today are not as organic
as they seem," one local in the Texas capitol tweeted Wednesday, along with photos offered
as evidence.
George Soros, who invested heavily in Hillary winning the presidency, has already done some experimenting
on color revolutions in America, such as in Baltimore and in Ferguson.
An article from last year by Brandon Turbeville explains it:
It should also be noted that the Open Society Institute, one of Soros' main NGOs,
has worked closely with Mayor Rawlings-Blake and Google in making Baltimore one of their "test
cities" for smart technology and new fiber cables. Rawlings-Blake has had pleasant things to say
about Soros in the past.
While the above information addresses the involvement of #blacklivesmatter groups and similar
organizations active on the ground inside Ferguson as a matter of historical precedent, these
organizations and similar operations such as the
Black Youth
Project (
funded by Soros ) and the Open Society Institute and its subsidiaries have had a sizeable
presence
inside Baltimore in the time leading up to the Freddie Gray protests and continue to do so
as we speak.
The article mentions that in Ferguson buses were also used to bring protesters in from outside:
Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in
Chicago ; from the
Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners,
the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the
Gamaliel
Foundation - all funded in part by
Mr. Soros -
descended on Ferguson
starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last
month.
All were aimed at keeping the media's attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident
to focus on interrelated causes - not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives
that were highlighted by the news media in August.
So when Hillary, with her serial rapist husband at her side, came to give her speech the day after
her defeat, she may just have given the signal to begin a "purple revolution":
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly
into that good night" . On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands
of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were
both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented.
Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America"
and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as
is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international
hedge fund tycoon George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton
Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution"
in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push
back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama.
The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style
street protests and political disruption.
One could speculate that the rage Hillary Clinton displayed over having lost is what is being expressed
through her supporters in the form of a massive tantrum. Even if that is so, at a different level
forces are at work to steer the ship back under the control of the establishment and the ruling elite.
The whole narrative of U.S. color revolutions, astutely pinned down and shown on Chinese television,
can be seen below:
See also
Whitehouse The level of grilling was unprecedented. Compare with Obama press conferences,
which were as if taken from the USSR with presidents answers the question that he himself wrote.
You can be amazing at the art of making an elephant out of a fly that those presscorp honchos demonstrate.
Such a talented presstitutes.
Notable quotes:
"... One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing. ..."
"... We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected. ..."
"... They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries. ..."
"... And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media. ..."
"... Aggressively pursue the sources who leaked. ..."
"... Trump: We are. ..."
"... Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks, those are criminal leaks. ..."
"... But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East? ..."
"... Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. ..."
"... But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean, you have a lower approval rate than congress. ..."
"... Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network. ..."
"... If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day. ..."
"... I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal. ..."
"... Because it would be easier to be tough on Russian than make a deal. ..."
"... If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. ..."
"... But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave? ..."
...We have to talk about it to find out what's going ... because the press, honestly, is out of
control. The level of dishonesty is out of control. I ran for president to represent the citizens
of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities
well. I am talking and really talking on this very entrenched power structure, and what we're doing
is we're talking about the power structure, we're talking about its entrenchment. As a result, the
media is going through what they have to go through to, oftentimes, distort -- not all the time,
and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say, they're honest and fantastic, but much of it is
not. The distortion -- and we'll talk about it, you will be able to ask me questions about it --
but we're not going to let it happen because I'm here to take our message straight to the people.
... ... ...
On foreign affairs, we've already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders,
much of it you've covered, to move forward toward stability, security and peace in the most troubled
regions of the world, which there are many. We've had great conversations with the United Kingdom
and meetings, Israel, Mexico, Japan, China and Canada, really, really productive conversations. I
would say far more productive than you would understand. We've even developed a new council with
Canada to promote women's business leaders and entrepreneurs. Very important to me. Very important
to my daughter Ivanka.
I've directed our defense community headed by our great general now Secretary Mattis, he's over
there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the
murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world, used to be a small group, now
it's in large sections of the world. They've spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer. Another
mess I inherited, and we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran who has totally taken advantage
of our previous administration, and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism, and we're not going
to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it's not properly solved now. It's one of the
worst agreements I've ever seen drawn by anybody. I've ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding
of the United States military.
Had great support from the Senate. I've had great support from congress, generally. We've pursued
this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you, that
is my -- I would be so happy if we never had to use it, but our country will never have had a military
like this military we're about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on Earth in our
military, but they don't have the right equipment, and their equipment is old. I used it, I talked
about it at every step. Depleted. It's depleted. It won't be depleted for long. I think one of the
reasons I'm standing here instead of other people is that, frankly, I talked about it, we have to
have a strong military. We have to have strong law enforcement, also. So we do not go abroad in the
search of war. We really are searching for peace, but it's peace through strength.
At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a
scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I'm keeping my promises to the American
people. These are campaign promises. Some people are so surprised that we're having strong borders.
Well, that's what I have been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They're so surprised.
Oh, having strong borders. Well, that's what I have been talking about to the press and to everybody
else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They
lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I'm doing probably aren't
popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons. Then coming to Washington and
pursuing -- and then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is important to
many politicians. I am here following through on what I pledged to do. That's all I'm doing.
... ... ...
We've directed eliminations of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited
approval for the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plant, equipment,
roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get approved for a factory. They go in
for a permit. It's many, many years. Then at the end of the process they spend tens of millions of
dollars on nonsense and, at the end of the process they get rejected.
They may be rejected with me, but it's going to be a quick rejection. It's not going to take
years. But mostly it's going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and factories built and we
want the jobs. We don't want the jobs going to other countries.
... ... ...
We've imposed a hiring freeze on non-essential federal workers. We've imposed a temporary moratorium
on new federal regulations.
We've issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations
must be eliminated. Makes sense. Nobody's ever seen regulations like we have. You go to other countries
and you look at industries they have, and you say, let me see your regulations, and they're a fraction,
just a tiny fraction of what we have. And I want regulations because I want safety, I want environmental
-- all environmental situations to be taken properly care of, it's very important to me, but you
don't need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.
We've stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure
they are protected from crimes of violence. We've directed the creation of a task force for reducing
violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation -- take a look at Chicago and others
-- taking place right now in our inner cities. Horrible. We've ordered the Department of Homeland
Security and Justice to coordinate a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States
with drugs. We're becoming a drug-infested nation. Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars, and
we're not going to let it happen any longer.
We've undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation
and our tax dollars safe and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the
southern border. Met with general now Secretary Kelly yesterday, and we're starting that process,
and the wall is going to be a great wall, and it's going to be a wall negotiated by me. The price
is going to come down just like it has on everything else I've negotiated for the government, and
we're going to have a wall that works. We're not going to have a wall like now which is either non-existent
or a joke.
We've ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that
harbor criminal aliens and we've ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border,
no more release. No matter who you are, release. We've begin a nationwide effort to remove criminal
aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American
lives every single day. The court system has not made it easy for us. We've even created a new office
in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of
which there are many.
... ... ...
They were with me a week ago. You were here. General Motors committed likewise to invest billions
of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave.
And if I didn't get elected, believe me, they would have left, and these jobs and these things that
I am announcing would never have come here. Intel just announced it will move ahead with a new plant
in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with, and that will result in at least so
-- in at least 10,000 American jobs. Wal-Mart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United
States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. There will be many, many more.
Many more. These are a few that we're naming. Other countries have been taking advantage of us for
decades -- decades and decades and decades, folks -- and we're not going to let that happen anymore,
not going to let it happen.
... ... ...
Trump: Mike Flynn is a fine person. I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is
a man who, there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence who is with us
today, and I was not happy with the way that information was given. He didn't have to do that because
what he did wasn't wrong. What he did in terms of the information he saw, what was wrong was the
way other people including yourselves in this room were given that information, because that was
classified information that was given illegally. That's the real problem. And you can talk all you
want about Russia, which is all a, you know, fake news fabricated deal to try to make up for the
loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that
were supposedly involved with this but they know nothing about it. They never made a phone call to
Russia, they never received a phone call, it's all fake news. It's all fake news. The nice thing
is I see it starting to turn where people are now looking at the illegal -- I think it's very important
-- the illegal giving out classified information. And let me just tell you, it was given out, like,
so much. I'll give you an example. I called, as you know, Mexico. It was a very confidential, classified
call, but I called Mexico, and, in calling Mexico, I figured, well -- I spoke to the president of
Mexico, had a good call, and all of a sudden it's out for the world to see. It's supposed to be secret.
It's supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case. Same thing with Australia. All
of a sudden, people are finding out exactly what took place. The same thing happened with respect
to general Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I'm saying -- the first thing I thought of when I heard
about this is how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know
why? Because it's an [inaudible] process and the press should be ashamed of themselves, but more
importantly the people who gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves.
Really ashamed.
... ... ...
The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they're
there, because we have our new people going in place right now, as you know -- Mike Pompeo has now
taken control of the CIA, James Comey at F.B.I. Dan Coates is waiting to be approved, I mean,
he is a senator and a highly with respected one and waiting the to be approved, and our new people
are going in. And just while you're at it, The Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost
as disgraceful as the failing New York Times story yesterday, and it talked about -- this is front
page. So Director of National Intelligence just put out a statement, any suggestion that the United
States intelligence community -- this was just given to us -- is withholding information and not
providing the the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not
true. So they took this front-page story out of The Wall Street Journal, top, and they just wrote
the story that it's not true.
And I'll tell you something, I'll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth and
I guess I have all my life, but I've never seen more dishonest media than frankly the political media.
I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest. But I will say that I never
get phone calls from the media. How do they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal like
that without asking me? Or how do they write a story in The New York Times put it on the front page.
Like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big story, and it was nasty. Then they
called and said, we never said that, we like Mr. President Trump. They called my office, we like
Mr. Trump, we never said that. And they totally disrespected those very wonderful women, I have to
tell you, totally disrespected. I said give us a retraction. They never gave us a retraction and
I, frankly, went on to other things. Go ahead.
... ... ...
Reporter: Can you tell us in determining Michael Flynn did no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence
was weighed? Did you ask for transcripts of the telephone intercepts -- (inaudible) -- Aggressively
pursue the sources who leaked.
Trump: We are.
... ... ...
Trump: We're looking at them very, very seriously. I've gone to all of the folks in charge
of the various agencies, and where I've actually called the justice department to look into the leaks,
those are criminal leaks. They're put out by people either in agencies -- I think you will see
it stopping because now we have our people and, you know, again, we don't have our people in because
we can't get them approved by the Senate. We just had Jeff Sessions approved, just as an example.
So we are looking into that very seriously. It's a criminal act. You know what I say, when I was
called out on Mexico, I was shocked, because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment.
When I was called out on Mexico, I was -- honestly, I was really, really surprised. But I said, you
know it doesn't make sense, that won't happen. But it wasn't that important a call, it was fine,
I could show it to the world, he could show it to the world the president who is a very fine man,
by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said, that was terrible it was leaked. But what happens
when I'm dealing with the problems in North Korea and the Middle East?
Are you folks going to be reporting all that very, very confidential information, very important,
very -- you know, at the highest level? Are you going to be reporting about that, too? So I don't
want classified information getting out into the public in a way that was almost a test. So I'm dealing
with Mexico, I'm dealing with Argentina. We were dealing in this case with Mike Flynn. All this information
gets put into The Washington Post and The New York Times, and I'm saying, what's going to happen
when I'm dealing on the Middle East? What's going to happen when I'm dealing with really, really
important subjects like North Korea? We've got to stop it. That's why it's a criminal penalty. Yes,
John?
Trump: Well, the leaks are real. You're the one who wrote about them and reported
them. The leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it. The leaks are absolutely real. The
news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do, and
I hope we can correct it, because there is nobody I have respect for -- well, maybe a little bit
-- but than good reporters. It's very important to me and especially in this position. Very important.
I don't mind a bad story.
I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it's true. You
know, over the course of time, I'll make mistakes and, you'll write, badly, and I'm OK with that,
but I'm not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN. It's so much anger and hatred and just the hatred
-- I don't watch it anymore because it's very good -- he's saying no. It's OK Jim, you will have
your chance. But I watch others, too. You're not the only one, so don't feel badly.
But I think it should be straight. I think it would be, frankly, more interesting. I know how
good everybody's ratings are right now, but I think they would actually be better. People -- I mean,
you have a lower approval rate than congress. I think that's right. I don't know, Peter, is that
one right? Because, you know, I think they have lower -- I heard lower than congress.
But, honestly,
the public would appreciate it I would appreciate it -- again, I don't mind bad stories when it's
true, but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult. I think we're
setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. The numbers are crazy
when I'm looking. Some of them were approved immediately, but we still have a lot of people we're
waiting for. That's all they're doing is delaying.
You look at Schumer and the mess he's got over there and they have nothing going. The only thing
they can do is delay. I think they would be better served by approving and making sure they're happy
and everybody is good. Sometimes, I know President Obama lost three or four and you lose them on
the way and that's OK, that's fine, but I think they would be much better served, John, if they just
went through the process quickly.
This is pure delay tactics, and they say it and everybody understands
it. Go ahead.
... ... ...
Jim Acosta: They don't hate you, sir.
Trump:Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10:00 in the evening. You just take a look at
that show, that is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news
is he doesn't have good ratings, but the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump, and the hatred and
venom coming from his mouth. The hatred coming from other people on your network.
Now, I will say
this -- I watch it, I see it, I'm amazed by it, and I just think you would be a lot better off, I
honestly do -- the public gets it. When I go to rallies, they turn around and start screaming at
CNN, they want to show their placards at CNN. I think you would do much better by being different.
But just take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening. If a guest comes out and
says something positive about me, it's brutal. Now, they'll take this news conference -- I'm actually
having a very good time, OK -- but they'll take this news conference -- don't forget, that's the
way I won't remember, I gave you a news conference every time I made a speech which was every day.
... ... ...
Reporter: Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?
Trump: No, I don't think so. I think Putin probably assumes he can't make a deal with me anymore
because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to be making a deal.
I can't believe I'm
saying I'm a politician but I guess that's what I am now. Because it would be easier to be tough
on Russian than make a deal.
I don't know if we'll make a deal. We might, might not. But it would
be easier for me -- the tougher I am on Russia, the better. I want to do the right thing for the
American people. I want to do the right thing for the world.
If Russia and the United States actually
got together and got along, don't forget, we're very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There's
no upside. We're very powerful nuclear country. I've been briefed, I can tell you one thing about
briefing that we're allowed to say, anybody that read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust
would be like no other. They are very powerful nuclear country, so are we.
If we have a good relationship
with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
... ... ...
Trump: They all happened recently. I understand what they're doing. Because they're doing the
same thing. Now, again, maybe I'm not going to be able to do a deal but at least I will have tried.
I don't, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump?
Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK.
But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a
deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away, she did other things away. They
say I'm close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium. She's close to Russia. You
know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave?
Reporter: I just hoping we could get yes or no answer involving Russia. Can you say whether you
are aware whether anyone who advised your campaign had contact with Russia during the course of the
election?
Trump: I told you general Flynn obviously was dealing so that's one person. As he should have been.
Reporter: During the election?
Trump: Nobody that I know of.
Reporter: Not aware of any contact during the course of the election.
Trump: How many times do I have to answer this question But Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to
do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia.
Not that I wouldn't, I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice, he called me on the
election, I told you this. He called me on the inauguration, a few days ago. We had a very good talk.
Especially the second one, lasted for pretty long period of time. I'm sure you probably get it because
it was classified so I'm sure everybody in this room perhaps has it? We have very, very good talk.
I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. Now people knew he was a consultant over in that part of the world
for awhile, but not for Russia. I think he repped Ukraine or people that -- whoever. But people knew
that. Everybody knew that.
Reporter: In the capacity as your campaign manager was he in touch with Russian officials?
Trump: You know what, he said, no. I can only tell you -- now, he was replaced long before the election,
you know that, right? He was replaced long before the election. When all of this stuff started coming
out it came out during the election, Paul Manafort who is a good man, also, by the way, Paul was
replaced long before the election took place. He's only there for a short period of time. How much
long should we stay here folks? Five more minutes is that OK? Five? Wait, let's see -- I want to
find a friendly reporter. Are you a friendly reporter? Watch out -- watch how friendly he is. Go
ahead.
... ... ...
Trump: I'm working on it. Look, just so you understand. We had a totally divided country for eight
years and long before that, in all fairness to President Obama, long before President Obama, we have
had a very divided -- I didn't come along and divide this country. This country was seriously divided.
We are going to work on it very hard one of the question that was asked, very good question about
inner cities, that's part of it. But we're going to work on education, we're going to work on --
going to stop -- try to stop the crime, great law enforcement officials. We're not going to try to
-- we're going to stop crime. But it's very important to me. But this isn't Donald Trump that divided
a nation.
We went eight years with President Obama and we went many years before President Obama. We lived
in a divided nation. And I am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. I
want to thank everybody very much. It's a great honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
President Trump has been in office for one month. I don't recall a lot of
noise with Barry's first 30 days other than the ooohhs and aaahhs from the presser's. So, with all
due respect, its not unreasonable to give the POTUS some slack while he's trying to form a cabinet
in what looks like an unprecedented hostile environment with the losing side.
Regarding "our debt based economic system"...the ponzi scheme, an accurate term to describe the
Federal Reserve, consider that come April, there will be three vacancies on the FED's seven member
Board of Governors. It is Trumps perogative to fill them.
In 2018, Both Yellen's and her Vice Chairman's leadership terms expire.
Trump's appointments will make up the majority of the FED's Board of Governors which is responsible
for regulating the banksters and making the nation's monetary policy. Lastly, I can't remember the
last time I heard a sitting president express views regarding the need to address the burdens that
the FED's policiies have had on american busininess and american workers suggesting the FED's bad
financial deals made with global bankers are without transparency, accountability, or the authority
to do so. Much to be done, much to be seen. Meanwhile, ease up a bit, this is more than cleaning
up a messy kitchen sink.
The recent victory of now President-elect Donald Trump has taken a lot of Americans by surprise.
But it would be safe to say that the corporate ruling elites that went all in on Hillary Clinton
were literally shocked by her defeat. Without her at the head of the state they fear they may not
be able to carry on spreading the corruption, which is believed to be at the
foundation
of the Clinton clan, or carry on waging wars upon other states which includes arming terrorists responsible
for killing thousands of civilians around the world.
And even though the corporate elites have formally acknowledged Trump's victory, they are pressuring
the current government to fight the next US President tooth and nail, until all resources are exhausted.
Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has acquired a long list of tricks that were
used against undesired governments in various parts of the world, while the most effective among
them is the so-called "color revolutions," where essentially a coup d'etat is achieved by media manipulation
and large mobs. US intelligence services are now prepared to unleash such a revolution on the home
front, since they are fairly concerned about their future under Trump, as the Washington Post would
report.
The fact that Obama still believes in Trump's inability to replace him in the White House has
already been announced by the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. At the same time, he would
point out, while commenting on the anti-Trump protests in the US, that the right for freedom of expression
must be exercised without violence, clearly alluding to the current administration's arsenal of "peaceful"
tools that would allow it to get rid of Trump.
That is why we already are witnessing a wave of "protests" being unleashed under the control of
the Obama administration. The corporate media and social networks are openly arrayed against the
incoming 45th US President. These very tactics have been used by US intelligence agencies in Brazil,
Nicaragua, Hong Kong, Thailand, as well as across the Middle East and Eastern Europe to unleash a
"color revolution". In some countries, such actions have brought foreign government under the direct
control of the White House, as we can see it in Ukraine, Brazil and several other countries.
As a result, we are now being
told
about thousands of protesters in US cities rallying against the Trump election victory. These claims
were followed by a petition published on Change.org that demands the US authorities change the results
of the recent election, demanding the electoral college be revised, and that the election results
be overturned on December 19. It is being reported that this petition has already been signed by
a total of two million people.
It goes without saying that an attempt to launch a "color revolution" in the United States is
being supported by a number of Europe states in addition to the US, including France and Germany,
since the political order there is concerned about the impunity they've been enjoying coming to an
end, with Trump failing to openly signal continued open US support for them.. The British Independent
wants Trump to be impeached, citing law professor Christopher Peterson, who would claim that
there is a strong case for the beginning of legal proceedings that would stop Donald Trump from being
president. The impeachment process is usually initiated when a president of a state has committed
some sort of a serious offense, but Trump hasn't been able to do anything yet, since he hasn't been
inaugurated. Still the Independent
believes there must be some legal ground for his impeachment.
It's clear the train of "color revolution" is under full steam in the US today. What will come
up from this attempt to ignore the US Constitution, remains to be seen.
"... The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom. ..."
A Medical Theory for Donald Trump's Bizarre Behavior ... Many mental health professionals believe the president is ill. But what if the cause is an untreated STD? ... Al Franken recently raised a provocative question about Donald Trump: Is he mentally ill? On HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week, the Minnesota senator claimed that some of his Republican colleagues have "great concern about the president's temperament," adding that "there's a range in what they'll say, and some will say that he's not right mentally. And some are harsher." Two days later, he told CNN's Jake Tapper, "We all have this suspicion that-you know, that he's not-he lies a lot And, you know, that is not the norm for a president of the United States, or, actually, for a human being." -
The New Republic
So according to the The New Republic, President Donald Trump may have syphilis and should explore
treatment option as necessary with his personal physician.
He may have contracted it, according to the magazine, in the 1970s of 1980s when syphilis was on
the rise. If he didn't get it treated, it would be far advanced by now.
Advanced syphilis, neurosyphilis, and manifest itself in numerous ways, according to the article.
"Commonly recognized symptoms include irritability, loss of ability to concentrate, delusional thinking,
and grandiosity. Memory, insight, and judgment can become impaired. Insomnia may occur. Visual problems
may develop, including the inability of pupils to react to the light. This, along other ocular pathology,
can result in photophobia, dimming of vision, and squinting. All of these things have been observed
in Trump. Dementia, headaches, gait disturbances. and patchy hair loss can also be seen in later
stages of syphilis."
The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom.
Interesting. When Hillary was followed by an ambulance, had crazy eyes, needed to be carried
to her car from time to time, had spasms, was delusional, was irritable, and had a dozen other
symptoms of medical problems, the media whores told us that she had pneumonia for one day. Now
they tell us that someone who puts them in their place is mentally ill. They are digging their
own grave. Soon nobody will believe the retard media.
Hard to believe the New Republic wasn't being satirical with their "syphilis" theory.
It seems that psychiatry wishes to make every personality type a disorder, in an effort to
convince people that their specialty is based on science and perhaps to drum up business, so Trump
has "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".
Narcissim is pretty common in US presidents, and is seen as a positive trait in many respects.
Research has estimated that the average US president's narcissism is about a standard deviation
beyond the average citizen – and even higher than that of the average reality television star.
We also know that narcissism in US presidents is linked to ratings of greatness. Highly narcissistic
presidents like Lyndon Johnson are leaders who make big changes. Less narcissistic presidents
like Jimmy Carter are rated as mediocre (but, in the case of Carter, also regarded as admired
ex-presidents because they are seen as moral and caring).
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics.
When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media
outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the
New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut
and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration.
To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only]
undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world."
Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White
House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House.
She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage
over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine
him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time
to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as
"The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to
MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in
their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind
Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So
you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in
the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate
media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially,
and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be
"investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw
precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how
powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer
Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence
in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of
people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him
about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration
who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of
staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. .
. . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration."
How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the
struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in
Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told
him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she
wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never
gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of
Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer.
Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as
Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald
Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally,
not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character
assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word
story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads,
"Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline
on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention
of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's
Italian Fascists.
"... Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page -- ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds ..."
"... Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was. ..."
"... The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. ..."
"... This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic. ..."
"... Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself. ..."
"... perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity. ..."
The bamboozlement of the public is nearly complete. The Deep State has persuaded 80 percent of
Americans that all news is propaganda, especially the news emanating from the Deep State's own intel
department. They're still shooting for 100 percent. The fakest of all "fake news" stories turns out
to be "Russia Hacks Election." It was reported conclusively Saturday on the front page of The
New York Times , a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State:
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds
WASHINGTON - President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying
Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing
Donald
J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary
report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
You can be sure that this is now the "official" narrative aimed at the history books, sealing
the illegitimacy of Trump's election. It was served up with no direct proof, only the repeated "assertions"
that it was so. In fact, it's just this repetition of assertions-without-proof that defines propaganda.
It can also be interpreted as a declaration of war against an incoming president. The second civil
war now takes shape: It begins inside the groaning overgrown apparatus of the government itself.
Perhaps after that it spreads to the WalMart parking lots that have become America's new town square.
(WalMart sells pitchforks and patio torches.)
Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself?
The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases.
Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize
for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was.
The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top
intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power.
Trump worked a nice piece of ju-jitsu afterward, pretending to accept the finding as briefly and
hollowly as possible and promising to "look into the matter" after January 20 th - when
he can tear a new asshole in the NSA. I hope he does. This hulking security apparatus has become
a menace to the Republic.
Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the
designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations.
When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal
the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown
American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford
living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of
capital will finally assert itself.
What we're actually seeing in the current ceremonial between the incoming Trump and the outgoing
Obama is the smoldering wreckage of the Democratic Party (which I'm still unhappily enrolled in),
and flames spreading into the Republican party - as idiots such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain
beat their war drums against Russia. The suave Mr. Obama is exiting the scene on a low wave of hysteria
and the oafish Trump rolls in on the cloudscape above, tweeting his tweets from on high, and
perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck
is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction
of clarity.
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative
works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized Crime, may prove to
be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their
consequences at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable
framework by which Mr. Valentine's path led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose
witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William Colby Gave Me the Keys
to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized
against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations
and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute
force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure
under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile
nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and
prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal
actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the
Wolf; The Strength of the Pack; The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized
Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
"... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
"... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
"... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'
President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence
and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.
Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out
of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."
Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the
head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining
to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."
"This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan,
DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."
DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.
In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee
is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989.
Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the
DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.
Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the
breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns
about Bannon.
"I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one,"
he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment
of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern
this quote reorganization."
Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings.
And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"
And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.
"Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."
And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from
Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."
The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked
to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.
There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January
22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I
love you. I respect you."
Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that
Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the
word intelligence in quotes.
In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend
international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges
must remain equally adaptive and transformative."
Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary,
the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the
President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.
"... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
"... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
"... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'
President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that
removes the director of intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold
crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.
Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so
much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."
Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order
signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer
would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their
responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."
"This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make
policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly
inappropriate language from a former ambassador."
DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN
confirmed.
In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the
Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national
security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has
included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the
head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.
Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside
Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has
in the Trump administration.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team
writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.
"I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think
you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the
permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure
from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote
reorganization."
Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in
Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"
And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings
if Trump isn't available.
"Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."
And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of
South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."
The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.
There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence
community
, though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels
stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect
you."
Before then,
the President had argued that intelligence services were politically
partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign
and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in
quotes.
In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United
States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States
Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain
equally adaptive and transformative."
Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury
secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the
assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief
strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.
"... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
"... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
"... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
Posted on
January 28, 2017 by
Yves Smith By
Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist,
was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders,
and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in
Feel
The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on
Citizens'
Media TV
But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a
misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.
A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You
Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment
of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance
is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.
Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow
$190,000.
And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.
$190,000 * .008 = $1,520
As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.
The
Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium
remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.
.008 - .0025 = .0055
$190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.
$1,520 - $1,045 = $475
$475 / 12 months = $39.59
Backlash Against Trump
The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble,
unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly,
one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they
briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural
speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.
"In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford
a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than
words."
"This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government
work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"
Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress,
in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this
decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a
home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."
"Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political
elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action]
said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of
everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge
fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday
people."
The Full Picture
To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers
never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not
announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and
was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.
In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or
even a projection document justifying the decrease.
As I understand it
, both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.
Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was
to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming
administration was not consulted.
Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive
order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.
"Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of
that time.
(Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)
Conclusion: It Was a Set Up
Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on
a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."
Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final
day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.
You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back
of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is
a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence,
"But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is
to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll
keep my word."
If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He
had eight years to do something.
This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set
the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If
the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something
similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered
by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used
as pawns in a cheap political game.
"The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average
Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group
Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of
character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office."
[ ]
"I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told
reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there
at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."
It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door.
It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.
There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.
So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?
To paraphrase Jimmy Dore ,
"The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong.
Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."
And again in another of his videos
: "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."
If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need
to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.
If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.
I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk
about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand
for anything except identity politics.
Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is
lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that
rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.
Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable,
and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all
except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.
Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since
around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general
(and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank
for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.
To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly
louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They
even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive
Progressives).
As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because
he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.
Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders,
are among my most important truth tellers.
It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason
to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after
Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.
Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights:
TYT meltdown .
My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women
who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!
What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and
religious foundations .. errrrrrr .
Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with
non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its
a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.
Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years
and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..
jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation
every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually
ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting.
Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you
of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out
there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a
more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced
on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in
the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and
very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.
The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness
of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have
opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will
continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues,
so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they
are just continuing what Obama started.
It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump
cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless
mind with these people.
Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's
a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?
Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them
no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium,
which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan
to value ratio of 80%.
So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not
tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage
and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and
your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying
$1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from
your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.
Sign me up!
So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed
on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so
that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one
way on a good day.
I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site
for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard
to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article
I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place
the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I
knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on.
But the above post helped a lot.
Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.
We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against
anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more
like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just
created in the first place.
Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid
the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and
where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't
afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area),
prices would drop until people could really afford them.
Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and
too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an
all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population
into debt slaves.
The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender
during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there
are other options such as lender paid mi.
Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront
and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was
wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced
PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest
paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.
Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .
"Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit
in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support
for working class homeowners."
I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and
everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he
acts, that delegitimizes us.
One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering
WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish
is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband
What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you
can see on CSPAN ).
When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.
We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.
Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.
This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious
trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends
for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to
avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.
By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He
earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing
it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his
successor? Petty.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That
will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working
families."
I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote),
and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw
middle class Americans in the process.
That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the
problem.
The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that
the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or
note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was
(according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have
even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone
else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that
is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that.
And how many homeowners are in the category?
And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned
about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans
they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability
of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies
against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once
again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips
and flops and dumb transactions and churning?
Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate
reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let
you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs
that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable
interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions
as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest"
states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel
is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to
pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee
simple absolute" is a comforting myth.
As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan
servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note
holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny
reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.
Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.
And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan
- but nonetheless
This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of
"Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration
of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge
of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.
Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely
to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan
Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages,
and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to
homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.
But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not
returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers
to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)
>See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls
like this
How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile,
and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.
This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What
is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?
It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles.
Each trough is different in depth.
Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.
Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension
benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free
benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.
What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide
any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have
been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.
Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in
the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political
purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed
incentives. Ditch it, Ben!
In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond
a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for
the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%.
My thinking was that
the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing
the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is
disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking
the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.
Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored.
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high
enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!!
But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous
injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you
have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2%
matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept
of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended
to protect the lender against loss of principal:
Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However,
that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.
Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of
2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today,
the share is less than 7%.
The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.
A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by
Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance
companies to pay on the bonds they insure.
Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their
insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.
Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform
brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night,
before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.
I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound
thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was
reversed.
Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new
step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy
families. "
That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher
interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need
to go up as well.
Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might
have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all
.
For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium
increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept
here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.
I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having
been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block
the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles
from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:
The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts
of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.
From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums
despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance
with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the
Republicans in Congress.
What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the
premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.
"What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"
"Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."
The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55%
which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as
it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny.
To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with
the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give
an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business,
anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations.
Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.
One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would
be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:
Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't
extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think
that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries.
In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:
Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i
recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them
in the 8 years he had
EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level.
Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.
Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.
There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion
& Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and
Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this
Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern.
They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game."
Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping
in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake.
Arrogance & Stupidity.
Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:
A)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the
trap.
3: MSMedia circus.
B)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
3: D-party denounces Trump.
4: MSMedia circus.
5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.
Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?
If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen
the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought
most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and
for what?
If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point
of requiring it?
That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during
the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd
think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage
holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though
and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more
exotic bets.
I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the
female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to
that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.
I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.
It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years
and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences,
also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.
Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.
I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to
tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute
progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope
the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.
The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates
or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and
likely designed more for political gain than anything.
It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability
when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed
on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented
back out to them.
Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing
bubble.
Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed
to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home
buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that
extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are
many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful
action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop
his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that
wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth
or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.
Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium
decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover
the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently
the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you
announce otherwise.)
That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the
very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting
a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.
I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I
immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up
in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never
had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical
can his sycophants be?
Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something
"off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the
stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what
was actually happening. Thank you.
The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy
didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous
that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?
Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare
cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program
outright.
We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in
virtue.
You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From
Bruce's comment above:
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should
be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but
no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for
free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require
continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress,
then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or
4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the
concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or
damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at
this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.
Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the
correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted,
could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?
"... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
"... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
"... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
Posted on
January 28, 2017 by
Yves Smith By
Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist,
was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders,
and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in
Feel
The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on
Citizens'
Media TV
But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a
misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.
A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You
Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment
of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance
is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.
Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow
$190,000.
And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.
$190,000 * .008 = $1,520
As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.
The
Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium
remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.
.008 - .0025 = .0055
$190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.
$1,520 - $1,045 = $475
$475 / 12 months = $39.59
Backlash Against Trump
The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble,
unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly,
one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they
briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural
speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.
"In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford
a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than
words."
"This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government
work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"
Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress,
in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this
decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a
home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."
"Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political
elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action]
said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of
everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge
fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday
people."
The Full Picture
To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers
never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not
announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and
was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.
In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or
even a projection document justifying the decrease.
As I understand it
, both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.
Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was
to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming
administration was not consulted.
Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive
order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.
"Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of
that time.
(Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)
Conclusion: It Was a Set Up
Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on
a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."
Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final
day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.
You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back
of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is
a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence,
"But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is
to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll
keep my word."
If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He
had eight years to do something.
This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set
the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If
the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something
similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered
by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used
as pawns in a cheap political game.
"The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average
Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group
Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of
character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office."
[ ]
"I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told
reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there
at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."
It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door.
It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.
There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.
So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?
To paraphrase Jimmy Dore ,
"The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong.
Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."
And again in another of his videos
: "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."
If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need
to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.
If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.
I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk
about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand
for anything except identity politics.
Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is
lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that
rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.
Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable,
and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all
except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.
Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since
around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general
(and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank
for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.
To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly
louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They
even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive
Progressives).
As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because
he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.
Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders,
are among my most important truth tellers.
It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason
to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after
Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.
Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights:
TYT meltdown .
My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women
who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!
What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and
religious foundations .. errrrrrr .
Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with
non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its
a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.
Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years
and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..
jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation
every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually
ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting.
Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you
of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out
there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a
more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced
on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in
the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and
very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.
The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness
of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have
opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will
continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues,
so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they
are just continuing what Obama started.
It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump
cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless
mind with these people.
Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's
a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?
Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them
no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium,
which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan
to value ratio of 80%.
So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not
tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage
and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and
your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying
$1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from
your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.
Sign me up!
So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed
on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so
that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one
way on a good day.
I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site
for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard
to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article
I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place
the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I
knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on.
But the above post helped a lot.
Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.
We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against
anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more
like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just
created in the first place.
Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid
the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and
where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't
afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area),
prices would drop until people could really afford them.
Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and
too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an
all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population
into debt slaves.
The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender
during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there
are other options such as lender paid mi.
Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront
and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was
wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced
PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest
paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.
Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .
"Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit
in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support
for working class homeowners."
I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and
everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he
acts, that delegitimizes us.
One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering
WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish
is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband
What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you
can see on CSPAN ).
When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.
We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.
Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.
This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious
trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends
for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to
avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.
By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He
earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing
it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his
successor? Petty.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That
will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working
families."
I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote),
and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw
middle class Americans in the process.
That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the
problem.
The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that
the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or
note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was
(according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have
even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone
else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that
is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that.
And how many homeowners are in the category?
And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned
about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans
they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability
of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies
against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once
again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips
and flops and dumb transactions and churning?
Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate
reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let
you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs
that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable
interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions
as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest"
states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel
is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to
pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee
simple absolute" is a comforting myth.
As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan
servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note
holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny
reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.
Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.
And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan
- but nonetheless
This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of
"Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration
of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge
of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.
Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely
to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan
Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages,
and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to
homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.
But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not
returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers
to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)
>See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls
like this
How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile,
and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.
This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What
is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?
It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles.
Each trough is different in depth.
Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.
Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension
benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free
benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.
What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide
any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have
been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.
Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in
the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political
purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed
incentives. Ditch it, Ben!
In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond
a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for
the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%.
My thinking was that
the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing
the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is
disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking
the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.
Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored.
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high
enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!!
But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous
injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you
have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2%
matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept
of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended
to protect the lender against loss of principal:
Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However,
that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.
Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of
2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today,
the share is less than 7%.
The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.
A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by
Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance
companies to pay on the bonds they insure.
Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their
insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.
Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform
brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night,
before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.
I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound
thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was
reversed.
Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new
step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy
families. "
That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher
interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need
to go up as well.
Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might
have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all
.
For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium
increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept
here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.
I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having
been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block
the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles
from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:
The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts
of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.
From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums
despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance
with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the
Republicans in Congress.
What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the
premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.
"What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"
"Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."
The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55%
which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as
it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny.
To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with
the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give
an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business,
anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations.
Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.
One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would
be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:
Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't
extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think
that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries.
In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:
Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i
recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them
in the 8 years he had
EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level.
Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.
Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.
There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion
& Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and
Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this
Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern.
They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game."
Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping
in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake.
Arrogance & Stupidity.
Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:
A)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the
trap.
3: MSMedia circus.
B)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
3: D-party denounces Trump.
4: MSMedia circus.
5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.
Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?
If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen
the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought
most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and
for what?
If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point
of requiring it?
That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during
the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd
think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage
holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though
and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more
exotic bets.
I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the
female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to
that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.
I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.
It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years
and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences,
also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.
Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.
I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to
tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute
progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope
the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.
The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates
or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and
likely designed more for political gain than anything.
It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability
when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed
on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented
back out to them.
Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing
bubble.
Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed
to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home
buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that
extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are
many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful
action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop
his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that
wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth
or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.
Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium
decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover
the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently
the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you
announce otherwise.)
That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the
very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting
a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.
I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I
immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up
in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never
had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical
can his sycophants be?
Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something
"off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the
stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what
was actually happening. Thank you.
The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy
didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous
that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?
Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare
cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program
outright.
We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in
virtue.
You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From
Bruce's comment above:
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should
be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but
no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for
free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require
continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress,
then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or
4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the
concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or
damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at
this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.
Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the
correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted,
could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?
"... Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? ..."
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably
available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe
that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians
make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years
of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump
boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds
of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire
Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at
the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party
is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be . Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara
Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of
the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret
service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to
be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever
wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab
her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding
to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game,
you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
1) The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
2) Ditto, regulations.
3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters,
for example.
5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? ..."
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably
available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe
that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians
make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years
of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump
boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds
of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire
Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at
the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party
is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be . Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara
Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of
the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret
service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to
be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever
wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab
her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding
to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game,
you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
1) The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
2) Ditto, regulations.
3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters,
for example.
5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... Trump's success of failure will be measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble. ..."
"... Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement, not matter how you slice it. ..."
"... And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to neoconservatives in Washington. ..."
"... If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this year, representing an important headwind) . ..."
"... While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert, and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely), the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces. ..."
Trump's success of failure will be
measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED
website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble.
*assuming the data
continues to be reported if it goes south on him, or he doesn't insist that the method of measuring
change. Something that is a real fear.
Slightly OT, there is one well-known wonky government data site I am watching. I think there are
better than 50/50 odds it disappears within the next two weeks.
Disruption of neoliberal status
quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement,
not matter how you slice it.
And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should
not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often
hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to
neoconservatives in Washington.
If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal
empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US
economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this
year, representing an important headwind) .
No further escalation in geopolitical conflicts represents an important tailwind and might
help.
While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert,
and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely),
the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale
nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces.
Professor Stephen Cohen thinks that this is worse then Cuban Missile Crisis and he is an
expert in this area.
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful
transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps
banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had
such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain
and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife
fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite
of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy
headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse
by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on
a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass
drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan
and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion
military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents
insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his
ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup
to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national
industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have
to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their
primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not
to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused
by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted
by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing.
The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation
of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on
western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions
in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround
him, with the possibly exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and
not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
(Reprinted from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
"... For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. ..."
"... Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. ..."
The following is the complete text of President Donald J. Trump's
inaugural address delivered on January 20, 2017.
Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President
Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank
you.
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort
to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for
years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get
the job done.
Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly
and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama
and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this
transition. They have been magnificent.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to
another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power
from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the
rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington
flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians
prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The
establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have
not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's
Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across
our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this
moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all
across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but
whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the
rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no
longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement
the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation
exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods
for their families, and good jobs for themselves.
These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers
and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories
scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an
education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and
beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and
drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much
unrealized potential.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our
dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one
home, and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all
Americans.
For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of
American industry;
Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very
sad depletion of our military;
We've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our
own;
And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure
has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and
confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even
a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left
behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and
then redistributed across the entire world.
But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every
city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it's going to be America First.
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs,
will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making
our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.
Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never,
ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will
bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and
tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding
our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world –
but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let
it shine as an example for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the
civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will
eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the
United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will
rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for
prejudice.
The Bible tells us, "how good and pleasant it is when God's people
live together in unity."
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but
always pursue solidarity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be
protected.
We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and
law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.
In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it
is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action –
constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over.
Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match
the heart and fight and spirit of America.
We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the
mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and
to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal
our divisions.
It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget:
that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red
blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all
salute the same great American Flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the
windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they
fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the
breath of life by the same almighty Creator.
So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from
mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:
You will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American
destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us
along the way.
Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.
We Will Make America Wealthy Again.
We Will Make America Proud Again.
We Will Make America Safe Again.
And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God
Bless You, And God Bless America.
Buffett Supports Trump on Cabinet Picks 'Overwhelmingly'
by Amanda L Gordon and Noah Buhayar
January 19, 2017, 8:19 PM EST January 20, 2017, 10:12 AM EST
Warren Buffett said he "overwhelmingly" supports President-elect Donald Trump's choices for cabinet
positions as the incoming commander-in-chief's selections face confirmation hearings in the U.S.
Senate.
"I feel that way no matter who is president," the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman
and chief executive officer said Thursday in New York at the premiere of a documentary about his
life. "The CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."
"If they fail, then it's your fault and you got to get somebody new," Buffett said. "Maybe you
change cabinet members or something."
Buffett, 86, backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, stumping for her in Omaha, Nebraska,
and headlining fundraisers. The billionaire frequently clashed with Trump and scolded him for not
releasing income-tax returns, as major party presidential candidates have done for roughly four decades.
Trump's cabinet picks include Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. banker; former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state; and retired
Marine Corps General James Mattis as Defense secretary.
Since the election, Buffett has struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump and called for unity.
In an interview with CNN in November, he said that people could disagree with the president-elect,
but ultimately he "deserves everybody's respect."
Trump's Popularity
That message hasn't resonated. Trump's popularity is the worst for an incoming president in at
least four decades, with just 40 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable impression of
him, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday. Buffett said on Thursday that the
low approval ratings won't matter much.
"It's what you go out with that counts -- 20, 50 years later what people feel you've achieved,"
Buffett said.
The president-elect has continued his pugnacious style during the transition, picking fights on
Twitter with news outlets, automakers, defense contractors, intelligence agencies, Hollywood actress
Meryl Streep and civil rights hero-turned-U.S. Congressman John Lewis.
* It solved the problem of Democrats beginning to get a spine and going after the Felonious
Five (or at least the three with major conflict of interest).
* It bumped Bush's approval rating from 40% to 80%.
* It greatly lowered opposition to Bush's anti-civil-liberties policies, such as creating
"1st Amendment Zones".
* It made passage of the Patriot Act possible.
* People were able to smear opposition to the Bush team policies as treasonous.
* It rendered torture, aggressive war, and barbaric imprisonment without due process of
law respectable.
Bush Administration sabotaged investigation:
Remember Coleen Rowley who claimed that an FBI superior back in DC rewrote her request for
a warrant, to make it less likely that it would be approved? There was also the FBI agent in
Arizona who wanted to investigate certain pilot students, but was prohibited.
Remember the DeLenda Plan? Once
we knew the USS Cole was Al Qaeda, it should have been executed. As in the spring of 2001.
Alas, it was deferred to after 9/11. Most incompetent crew ever and the Twin Towers fell down
taking 3000 people with because of their utter incompetence.
The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on
Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.
The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law
that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement.
Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.
The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who
argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a
fundamental principle of US democracy.
David B
3
hours ago (edited)
Alright Trump, you're in office now, drain the
Swamp, you can start with the federal Reserve, and
CIA, oh and the justice department as well.
For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while
the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its
wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not
been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our
nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That
all changes starting right here and right now. Because this moment is your moment. It belongs to
you.
Summers and Krugman. See their most recent columns. I think
more of the level-headed elites are thinking/hoping that
Trump will be 4 years and out and it will all blow over.
And what happens
if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable?
I have no idea but I'm guessing they won't go flip burgers at McDonalds. (See also disbanding
the Iraqi army ca. 2003.) Will they exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit? If so then what form
will it take?
And what happens
if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable?
I have no idea but I'm guessing they won't go flip burgers at McDonalds. (See also disbanding
the Iraqi army ca. 2003.) Will they exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit? If so then what form
will it take?
See, I'm not surprised that
BuzzFeed
would do something as shady and unethical as
exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show.
Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever
surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they
admit cannot be verified.
He's got a lot of options for
catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past
week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's
ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart.
It could well adversely affect their ability to feed
themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.
Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical
that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially
all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough
rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?
*Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the
winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?
libezkova ->
Dan Kervick...
, -1
Dan,
"Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president
will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."
I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen
candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if
politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned
how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.
That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance
-- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being
one.
I agree that it is strange that we have "Trump rally" and that
this rally somewhat contradicts my hypothesis (although not much
if we analyze S&P 500 by sector, for example oil industry definitely
should rally, no question about it).
You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole
did much better that financial industry ETFs.
People made a lot of money based on this recently.
Trumps ties to de Rothschild is where you don't get it. Oh, what
did Donald do in 2008 that got him in bad trouble..............GS
left the Morgans in 2009 and finally that truth is coming out
of the closet. My guess when Democrats come back into the WH,
GS gets hurt bad bad bad.
Trump will likely do something bold militarily, very early in
his administration, most likely directed against ISIS and related
jihadi groups. He will partner with Russia in doing this.
If
it goes reasonably well, Putin will be our new best buddy in
the war on terror. The media herd, responding with the usual
America at War televised info-frenzy, will ramble en masse away
from it's current obsession with Russian spying and hacking,
and will instead be covering the war theater with embedded journalists
in flak jackets and helmets. They will be interviewing, among
others, Russian pilots and generals, newly discovered to be likable
and sturdy vodka-slugging war heroes, and our allies against
terrorists, not diabolical villains. They will regale the public
with background stories about heroic Russian deeds of the past,
including how they stopped Hitler in the snows of western Russia.
Nobody will care any more about the details of the 2016 election,
and the sad dead-enders who can't let it go.
On the other hand, if it goes poorly, this will give the public
even more opportunity to indulge conspiracy theories about false
flags, Russian and American "deep state" subversion, crony-capitalist
bribery, election meddling and the illegitimacy of the 2016 outcome,
Russian state television propaganda, left-wing fifth columnists
and traitors, etc.
So that's what I mean when I say that Trump's perceived legitimacy
will depend on how things go.
"Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators
President-elect Donald Trump has complained about paid activists both before and after the 2016 presidential campaign, and as
The
Washington Times reports, he may have a point.
Job ads running in more than 20 cities offer $2,500 per month for agitators to demonstrate at this week's presidential inauguration
events.
Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the "largest private grassroots support organization in the United
States," posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking "operatives."
"Get paid fighting against Trump!" says the ad.
"We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why
not do so with us!" the ad continues. "We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration
protests."
The job offers a monthly retainer of $2,500 plus "our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least
6 events a year," as well as health, vision and dental insurance for full-time operatives.
While there have been "fake" ads in the past, as
The
Washington Times notes , if the Demand Protest ads are ruses, however, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to sell the
scam.
The classifieds are running in at least two dozen cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and the company
operates a slick website that includes contact information.
A San Francisco phone number listed on the website was answered with a voice-mail message identifying the company by name. A request
for comment left Monday evening was not immediately returned.
The website, which says that the company has provided 1,817 operatives for 48 campaigns, promises "deniability," assuring clients
that "we can ensure that all actions will appear genuine to media and public observers."
"We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages," says the website. "With
absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements.
When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact."
A search by the
Washington
Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth,
Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.
lmao!!!..."All our operatives have access to our 24/7 phone help desk in addition to in-person support at events."
HELLO? HELP! I GOT LOST I'M GETTING MY ASS MUGGED BY THREE BLACK DUDES ONLY FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE WH!
"What? Who is this? How did you get this number? You sound like a racist Trump supporter!"
(click)...lol.
1980XLS d WTFMOFO •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Fuck unemployment. Sue them for unjust termination after the Jig is Over.
Mazzy d Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM
For example:
$17 per hour (makes it seem more real than a common number such as 15) for operative/protestor. Bus transportation will be
provided. Paid half upon arrival at destination, half upon return.
Bus will be located at address xxxx on yyyyy street (in front of local democrat councilman's house, or local university professor...be
creative, make it hilarious).
nmewn -> Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:28 PM
I like the way you think...lol.
Mazzy -> nmewn •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Or just tell them to meet on the Quad/Square/Commons of the local college/university. Say that they will be meeting some professor
of 'whatever', just look it up and come up with something plausible.
Say that the bus will transport them to the nearest city or nearest larger city or the state capitol or whatever. Again, be
plausible and convincing. Be creative and cross check before you post. I think we can pull this off.
Think of the hilarity when a bunch of Hilary fems/mancucks or hundreds of angry Obama's sons show up and there's no payment.....
MASTER OF UNIVERSE •Jan 17, 2017 7:33 PM
Participatory Democracy has improved with monetary inducements for those that demonstrate, but when demonstrators make the
same pay grade as the Police Officers hired by the State we will have equality of opportunity without disparity between protagonists
& antagonists which would likely be better than what we see now.
Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the Trump camp was advertising for paid goons to prevent President-Elect-Hillary's
inauguration.
The media outcry would be heard on Mars and the National Guard if not the army would be deployed to detain and charge them.
Trump himself would be at least threatened with the crime of aiding and abetting treason and his close associates would be
placed in preventative detention for six months.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that having now de-legitimised Trump's election win, the "powers that be" are working up
to openly carry out a public coup against the president-elect of their own country. As their attempts have been failing they have
been escalating their methodology.
They have become so used to doing it to other countries and their rationalisation is the same: what we define as evil can and
will be destroyed using whatever means are necessary.
He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the
forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse
effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart. It could well adversely affect their
ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.
Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical
that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially
all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope
will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?
*Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the
winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?
If we assume that Trump is a narcissist, your analysis is all wrong.
In this case he might go not after China, but after security parasites who tried to play J.
Edgar Hoover on him. And try to destroy this scum.
libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
Dan,
"Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be
determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."
I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen
candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician
belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they
will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.
That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance
-- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.
See, I'm not surprised that
BuzzFeed
would do something as shady and unethical as
exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show.
Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever
surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they
admit cannot be verified.
He's got a lot of options for
catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past
week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's
ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart.
It could well adversely affect their ability to feed
themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.
Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical
that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially
all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough
rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?
*Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the
winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?
libezkova ->
Dan Kervick...
, -1
Dan,
"Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president
will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."
I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen
candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if
politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned
how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.
That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance
-- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being
one.
I agree that it is strange that we have "Trump rally" and that
this rally somewhat contradicts my hypothesis (although not much
if we analyze S&P 500 by sector, for example oil industry definitely
should rally, no question about it).
You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole
did much better that financial industry ETFs.
People made a lot of money based on this recently.
Trumps ties to de Rothschild is where you don't get it. Oh, what
did Donald do in 2008 that got him in bad trouble..............GS
left the Morgans in 2009 and finally that truth is coming out
of the closet. My guess when Democrats come back into the WH,
GS gets hurt bad bad bad.
Trump will likely do something bold militarily, very early in
his administration, most likely directed against ISIS and related
jihadi groups. He will partner with Russia in doing this.
If
it goes reasonably well, Putin will be our new best buddy in
the war on terror. The media herd, responding with the usual
America at War televised info-frenzy, will ramble en masse away
from it's current obsession with Russian spying and hacking,
and will instead be covering the war theater with embedded journalists
in flak jackets and helmets. They will be interviewing, among
others, Russian pilots and generals, newly discovered to be likable
and sturdy vodka-slugging war heroes, and our allies against
terrorists, not diabolical villains. They will regale the public
with background stories about heroic Russian deeds of the past,
including how they stopped Hitler in the snows of western Russia.
Nobody will care any more about the details of the 2016 election,
and the sad dead-enders who can't let it go.
On the other hand, if it goes poorly, this will give the public
even more opportunity to indulge conspiracy theories about false
flags, Russian and American "deep state" subversion, crony-capitalist
bribery, election meddling and the illegitimacy of the 2016 outcome,
Russian state television propaganda, left-wing fifth columnists
and traitors, etc.
So that's what I mean when I say that Trump's perceived legitimacy
will depend on how things go.
"Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators
President-elect Donald Trump has complained about paid activists both before and after the 2016 presidential campaign, and as
The
Washington Times reports, he may have a point.
Job ads running in more than 20 cities offer $2,500 per month for agitators to demonstrate at this week's presidential inauguration
events.
Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the "largest private grassroots support organization in the United
States," posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking "operatives."
"Get paid fighting against Trump!" says the ad.
"We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why
not do so with us!" the ad continues. "We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration
protests."
The job offers a monthly retainer of $2,500 plus "our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least
6 events a year," as well as health, vision and dental insurance for full-time operatives.
While there have been "fake" ads in the past, as
The
Washington Times notes , if the Demand Protest ads are ruses, however, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to sell the
scam.
The classifieds are running in at least two dozen cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and the company
operates a slick website that includes contact information.
A San Francisco phone number listed on the website was answered with a voice-mail message identifying the company by name. A request
for comment left Monday evening was not immediately returned.
The website, which says that the company has provided 1,817 operatives for 48 campaigns, promises "deniability," assuring clients
that "we can ensure that all actions will appear genuine to media and public observers."
"We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages," says the website. "With
absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements.
When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact."
A search by the
Washington
Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth,
Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.
lmao!!!..."All our operatives have access to our 24/7 phone help desk in addition to in-person support at events."
HELLO? HELP! I GOT LOST I'M GETTING MY ASS MUGGED BY THREE BLACK DUDES ONLY FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE WH!
"What? Who is this? How did you get this number? You sound like a racist Trump supporter!"
(click)...lol.
1980XLS d WTFMOFO •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Fuck unemployment. Sue them for unjust termination after the Jig is Over.
Mazzy d Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM
For example:
$17 per hour (makes it seem more real than a common number such as 15) for operative/protestor. Bus transportation will be
provided. Paid half upon arrival at destination, half upon return.
Bus will be located at address xxxx on yyyyy street (in front of local democrat councilman's house, or local university professor...be
creative, make it hilarious).
nmewn -> Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:28 PM
I like the way you think...lol.
Mazzy -> nmewn •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Or just tell them to meet on the Quad/Square/Commons of the local college/university. Say that they will be meeting some professor
of 'whatever', just look it up and come up with something plausible.
Say that the bus will transport them to the nearest city or nearest larger city or the state capitol or whatever. Again, be
plausible and convincing. Be creative and cross check before you post. I think we can pull this off.
Think of the hilarity when a bunch of Hilary fems/mancucks or hundreds of angry Obama's sons show up and there's no payment.....
MASTER OF UNIVERSE •Jan 17, 2017 7:33 PM
Participatory Democracy has improved with monetary inducements for those that demonstrate, but when demonstrators make the
same pay grade as the Police Officers hired by the State we will have equality of opportunity without disparity between protagonists
& antagonists which would likely be better than what we see now.
Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the Trump camp was advertising for paid goons to prevent President-Elect-Hillary's
inauguration.
The media outcry would be heard on Mars and the National Guard if not the army would be deployed to detain and charge them.
Trump himself would be at least threatened with the crime of aiding and abetting treason and his close associates would be
placed in preventative detention for six months.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that having now de-legitimised Trump's election win, the "powers that be" are working up
to openly carry out a public coup against the president-elect of their own country. As their attempts have been failing they have
been escalating their methodology.
They have become so used to doing it to other countries and their rationalisation is the same: what we define as evil can and
will be destroyed using whatever means are necessary.
"... The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump ..."
"... For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. ..."
"... It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it . ..."
"... This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it. ..."
"... Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers. ..."
"... And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics? ..."
"... A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps. ..."
The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically
in the other direction , by
endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump (my emphasis):
For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary
Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump.
In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell
announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that "Mr. Putin had
recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The CIA and NSA director
under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and
went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that "Donald Trump
really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin," adding that Trump is "the useful fool, some naif,
manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted
and exploited."
It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical
of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was
eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it .
Now Trump is president and the pro-war national security forces are at it again, leaning again
on Trump in yet another intrusion into the political process .
So who again tried to tilt the field for or against Clinton or Trump? Including Russia, the administration,
Comey, agents of the FBI and NY police, the CIA and national security forces, I count five groups.
This is a lot of political intrusion, regardless of which candidate you favored - all within the
last year - and we're still not done. I'm sure we're only halfway through this extended drama.
The Selective Blindness of the Democratic Party
Third, with all this political interference, where are the Democrats? Do they condemn it all,
praise it all, or pick and choose?
Bottom line: They see what they want to see, not what's in front of us all and in plain sight.
Which is not only unprincipled, it's dangerous for them as well as us.
Again, they did not see Obama's original declarations of Clinton's innocence as political
intrusion. But they did see Comey's eventual "won't indict, but will condemn" speech, and
his and other investigators' pre-election actions, as political intrusion. They did not see
the "pro-war" security apparatus' endorsement of Clinton and trashing of Trump as intrusions. But
they do see Russian interference as intrusion. And they absolutely don't see the security
services' present blackmail threats against a duly elected president as political interference.
They see what they want to see, what they think helps them politically and electorally, and they're
blind to the rest. This is highly unprincipled. And again, it's dangerous as well.
After all, one reason the institutional Democratic Party nearly lost to Sanders, a highly principled
man - and did lose to Trump, a man who pretended to be principled - is that plenty of voters in key
states were just tired of being taken for a ride by "say one thing, do another" Democrats. Tired,
in other words, of unprincipled Democrats - tired of job-promising. job-killing trade deals pushed
hard by both Democratic presidents, tired of the bank bailout that made every banker whole but
rescued almost no mortgagees , tired of their
reduced lives , their
mountain of personal debt , tired of the overly complex, profit-infected, still-unsolved medical
care system - tired of what 16 years of Democrats had done to them, not for them.
If Democrats want to start winning again, not just the White House, but Congress and state houses,
they can't continue to be these Democrats - unprincipled and self-serving. They must be
those Democrats, Sanders Democrats, principled Democrats instead.
Does the above litany of complaint about political interference when it suits them, and non-complaint
when it doesn't, look like principled behavior to you?
Which brings me to the end of this part of the discussion. If some people see this party behavior
as self-serving hypocrisy, you can bet others do as well. Democrats can only turn this decade-long
collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles. They have
to attract the Sanders voters who stood aside in the general election and see them very negatively.
Yes, Democrats will continue to get votes - some people will always vote Democratic. But in the post-Sanders,
post-Trump era, will they get enough votes to turn the current tide, which runs heavily against them?
I'm not alone in thinking, not a chance.
But this is the long form of what I wanted to say. For the elevator speech version, just read
the three tweets at the top. I think they capture the main points very nicely.
Glenn Greenwald: "The Deep State Goes to War with the President-Elect, and Democrats Cheer"
Greenwald's take is very similar to mine, and there's much more research in his
excellent piece . Writing at The Intercept , he says (emphasis in original):
The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
In January, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a
systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with
any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
You can see where this is going. The "deep state," the CIA, NSA and the rest of the unelected
national security apparatus of the U.S., is going to war with an elected president even before
he takes office, and Democrats are so eager for a win that they're siding with them.
Did Russia attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Did
the agents of the FBI et al attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats
condemned it. Is the national security state today interfering in the outcome of a U.S. election,
by trying to destabilize and force its will on the incoming administration? Of course, and Democrats
are cheering it.
As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the
worst in American history - who would aid the national security apparatus in undermining it?
Apparently, the Democratic Party. Greenwald continues:
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
And Greenwald agrees that this tactic is not just craven; it's also dangerous:
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking
him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When
it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people
and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how
factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from
basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of this, don't forget, rests on the
one document mentioned above , the material summarized in an appendix to the classified version
of the security services' report on Russia (emphasis mine):
the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility
in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document,
compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents
of Trump , accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct.
The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so,
too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts
to undermine it.
I'll send you to the
Greenwald piece for much more of this detail. As I said above, this story has seemed muddy until
now, but it just came clear.
A Coup in the Making
This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences.
Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason.
But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it.
If a Republican elected official had publicly warned Obama not oppose a policy the Republicans
and the CIA/NSA favored because "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you," what would
- what should - our response to that be? Mine would be horror and shock that a Republican
had dared make that threat, followed by fear that he, and the agencies behind him, will make good
on it. At which point, it's farewell democracy, likely for a long long time.
Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck
Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging
the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare
to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers.
And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
The video is
embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if
a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm
tactics?
A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless.
This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps.
By
Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius,
Tumblr
and
Facebook.
GP article archive
here.
Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles."
He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were
and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war
against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next
door to Russia. ..."
"... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden,
so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration
is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been
even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for
that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried
to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing
a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius'
is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:
"Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election
cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead
what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they
even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President
of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.
What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles?
How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.
'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter
than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?
This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead
of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard
against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led
Democratic Party. It's disgusting.
"... Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding? ..."
"... In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint. ..."
"... The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread. ..."
Just as an aside - not really economics, but I am really
worrying about what the war between the future white house
team and the CIA that seems to be brewing. I don't see good
solutions to this. It is sort of unprecedented in a major
western country. Can you think of a similar case (where the
intelligence services - and perhaps the military as well
regarded there own government head as an enemy agent)?
Define unprecedented.
What are your standards for a "major
western nation"? Any moral standard?
Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized
spooks with unlimited secret funding?
Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now.The voters
wanted someone to "shake things up"
Trump will be applying creative destruction to government
Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump
may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more
corrupt.
As with Obamacare, the idea is to destroy it and
replace it with something better.
Most revolutions find it easy to destroy and very much harder
to build
Most sane leaders recognize this difficulty and modify the
existing rather than destroy and never getting around to
replacement or find the replacement to be worse than the
existing.
Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting
chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump
will give the voters the radical change they think they want.
But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for
personal gain. The public will be left with a gutted
government that will need to be rebuilt before it will
function again
I don't believe in "creative destruction", I believe in
"destructive creation" which is something quite different.
But that is not the point. This is not about the government
as such, it is about the security apparatus in itself. It
could get very nasty if that ends up either totally alienated
or politicized.
If I were President, provoking an organization whose
specialty is covert operations and which has track record of
bringing about the demise of insufficiently agreeable leaders
would not be high on my to-do list.
The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton
loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon
Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime
change excuse the yellow press could spread.
Trump is an isolationist who repeatedly said the Iraq war was
a disaster, which it was.
If the CIA is going after Trump
they're doing a bad job. The worst they could come up with is
some unverified accounts that Trump likes pee-pee parties.
Because they are already reportedly telling some of their
contacts not to trust the government with information in case
it ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word
"war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but
in general I mean a state of mutual distrust.
"... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles."
He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were
and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war
against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next
door to Russia. ..."
"... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden,
so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration
is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been
even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for
that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried
to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing
a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius'
is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:
"Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election
cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead
what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they
even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President
of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.
What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles?
How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.
'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter
than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?
This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead
of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard
against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led
Democratic Party. It's disgusting.
"... I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US. ..."
"... And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot. ..."
"... Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State. ..."
"... The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell. ..."
"... The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open. ..."
"... Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump. ..."
Here's an account by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector on the Iraq WMD
investigation. It certainly appears to me from this and a number of sources that
what we have is a scandal of mammoth proportions that would suck in the senior
leadership of both Parties, the Intelligence Community, the State Department, the
White House and of course all of the various surrogates throughout media, were
this all subject to an independent, credible investigation.
I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission
was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street
crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through
the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further
empower the very worst interests operating in the US.
And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive
power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point
the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with
the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with
Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal
authority to run riot.
Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific
allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep
State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the
man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised
to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus
as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more
animosity toward the Deep State.
He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of
the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible
The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it
own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and
reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the
intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA
surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political
processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the
intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time
will tell.
The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those
whose eyes are open.
We've got multiple wrongs here. The Democratic Establishment, the
Intelligence agencies, and the Pravda-like media form the Deep State, which is
really controlled by the very rich. They are trying to cling to power here and
extract rent from society for the very rich. In return, its political servants
are themselves rewarded with wealth.
Then there's Trump. While I think he's a very unsavory person and he will do
some very damaging things to society, making up accusations of Russian hacks is
not the way to go. So far not a shred of evidence has been provided that Russia
was hacking. I doubt we will get any. That does not, as the article notes mean
that Russia is guiltless, but so fa the Democrats are pulling lies out of a hat
and hoping desperately it sticks.
Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this
is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the
Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the
reality of losing to Trump.
The sad part is that America is going to continue its decline unless this
whole mess stops. It is likely that anyone truly principled would have to clean
house in both parties and in many senior leadership positions across the US
government. Then there is the matter of corporate America and its agenda of
rent seeking.
"... I like the use of "careerist" ; it should be used more often, as it describes the motivation of a rather large number of decision-makers I've met. ..."
"... I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through overuse. ..."
Team Trump is working on a plan "to restructure the Central
Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia
headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the
world,"
And the main reason Clinton Democrats are jumping on this bandwagon is
that they want to blame their gross electoral failure on "external forces",
not their own terrible record of sabotaging the middle class in favor of
elite Wall Street interests. Their current fear is progressive Sanders
Democrats kicking them out of the DNC and other party organization
leadership positions (which just happened in California); hence their
willingness to get behind bogus claims on DNC hacking and Russians running
Trump.
As far as the FBI's Comey, notably he acted to protect Clinton when the
great fear was that she'd be defeated by Sanders; notably the FBI didn't
access DNC servers to look for evidence of a hack (it was probably an
internal leak), and Comey's refusal to recommend criminal charges for
Clinton during the primary was a service to the Clinton Democrats.
And the DNC was just so sleazy, no wonder they alienated all the Sanders
supporters for the general election:
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to
ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has
a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make
several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would
draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.- DNC CFO Brad
Marshall
I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied
to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career
and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There
are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those
vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through
overuse.
"... I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US. ..."
"... And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot. ..."
"... Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State. ..."
"... The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell. ..."
"... The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open. ..."
"... Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump. ..."
Here's an account by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector on the Iraq WMD
investigation. It certainly appears to me from this and a number of sources that
what we have is a scandal of mammoth proportions that would suck in the senior
leadership of both Parties, the Intelligence Community, the State Department, the
White House and of course all of the various surrogates throughout media, were
this all subject to an independent, credible investigation.
I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission
was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street
crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through
the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further
empower the very worst interests operating in the US.
And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive
power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point
the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with
the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with
Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal
authority to run riot.
Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific
allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep
State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the
man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised
to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus
as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more
animosity toward the Deep State.
He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of
the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible
The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it
own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and
reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the
intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA
surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political
processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the
intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time
will tell.
The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those
whose eyes are open.
We've got multiple wrongs here. The Democratic Establishment, the
Intelligence agencies, and the Pravda-like media form the Deep State, which is
really controlled by the very rich. They are trying to cling to power here and
extract rent from society for the very rich. In return, its political servants
are themselves rewarded with wealth.
Then there's Trump. While I think he's a very unsavory person and he will do
some very damaging things to society, making up accusations of Russian hacks is
not the way to go. So far not a shred of evidence has been provided that Russia
was hacking. I doubt we will get any. That does not, as the article notes mean
that Russia is guiltless, but so fa the Democrats are pulling lies out of a hat
and hoping desperately it sticks.
Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this
is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the
Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the
reality of losing to Trump.
The sad part is that America is going to continue its decline unless this
whole mess stops. It is likely that anyone truly principled would have to clean
house in both parties and in many senior leadership positions across the US
government. Then there is the matter of corporate America and its agenda of
rent seeking.
"... "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place." ..."
If Trump is worried about the existence of some "deep state" his first act in office should
be to demand a complete list of every intelligence sector employee, and the budgets, and dig in
and inform himself. They all work for him now.
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the
man puts America first, really says it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to
act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is
so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify
arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.
Arrest Hillary & Bill Clinton. Freeze their assets. RICO The Clinton Foundation & bring down
the Satanic Global Crime Syndicate.
This will de facto Drain the Swamp. Then, immediately End the Fed.
These Scum Fuck Occultist have been "Illuminated" and forced out into the light. This opportunity
to peacefully "Drain the Swamp" cannot be squandered.
"With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be
simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take
many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place."
Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is both a Goldmanite and, like his convict father, a neocon.
It is Jared Kushner who chose all the Goldmanites and Neocons in Trump's Cabinet, just as it was
Kushner who got rid of Gov. Chris Christie, the former NJ Prosecutor who put Jared's dad, Charles
Kushner, in Federal prison.
Consequently, there will be no Trump assassination, because Kushner and his Goldmanites will
not allow it. VP-Elect Mike Pence may be a lot of things, but a Goldmanite is not one of them.
The Goldmanites, historically, were not his campaign contributors, and they do not want him in
the Presidency. Trump will be protected BY Deep State and won't need to be protected FROM Deep
State.
More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They're Coming For Your Democracy"
"...Perkins has just reissued his book with major updates. The basic premise of the book remains
the same, but the update shows how the economic hit man approach has evolved in the last 12 years.
Among other things, U.S. cities are now on the target list. The combination of debt, enforced
austerity, underinvestment, privatization, and the undermining of democratically elected governments
is now happening here" ... "Things have just gotten so much worse in the last 12 years since the
first Confessions was written.
Economic hit men and jackals have expanded tremendously, including the United States and Europe.
Back in my day we were pretty much limited to what we called the third world, or economically
developing countries, but now it's everywhere. And in fact, the cancer of the corporate empire
has metastasized into what I would call a failed global death economy. This is an economy that's
based on destroying the very resources upon which it depends, and upon the military. It's become
totally global, and it's a failure."
Plan on a "treasure hunt" that will result in the likes of POTUS "transvestitus" John "winter
soldier" Kerry and John "demonic" Leprechaun Brennan being FOUND, SKINNED and put on display in
front of their respective places of work!...
What's frightening is that as the elites had NO IDEA hillary would lose so bad, they might
have equally NO IDEA of the massive blowback should they go through with anything like this.
A lot of US spooks are on the gravy train. Do you know how many Orlando McMansions and DC Colonials
have been bought with black bag money? There are Billions flowing in a river through the Middle
East.
Also, these fuckers don't know how to do anything but destroy value and kill people. They know
this is the only job they can get. They are incompetent in the private market. Look at the MI6
idiot who writes worse than a high school kid.
CIA isn't going to give that up without a fight. They are cornered rats. When Putin is in Iceland
I hope he can relate this survival story to President Trump:
Following World War II, in which his father served with the Russian secret police, his parents
move into a communal apartment in St. Petersburg where they eventually give birth to Putin (1952).
Because Russia is facing major poverty and is still recovering from the war, the apartment is,
in the words of Putin's school teacher, "horrid without any conveniences" (10). Although he goes
on to explain his experiences with the other families in the commune, none of whom had any children,
he briefly tells a story of the first time he learned "the meaning of the word cornered."
There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the
word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase
them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove
it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me.
I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and
down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and managed to slam the door shut in its nose.
(10)
I call bullshit, Slavo. I feel certain Mr. T. fully understands the deep state and watched
Ike's last address. There is an equally powerful 'state' in this nation and it is not born out
of the government. Even the negroes will rally to his side if they feel he's a better populist
alternative to the deep state.
I'm sure that I would giggle to read who is getting interviewed for T's personal security.
He's not going to go driving in chicago with the top down. Kennedy pissed off all sides of power.
I do not see T having a really bad day while traveling or flying. Kennedy was arrogant in a
much different way. This time 'round, it's more like Adolf choosing sides with Earnst Rhom and
brown shirts over the Gestapo.
And if 'they' are listening, as they usually are... safe drivers are rewarded with auto insurance.
Getting yearly full on check ups should drop bucks on your insurance. No penalties for being unhealthy,
but rewards for being healthy. It's called health care, not sick care. Get a camera shoved up
your ass every ten years after 50? discount! oh... and that shouldn't cost 15k
If the central idiots assassinate Trump, there should be massive wildcat strikes and refusal
to buy anything, and the military should refuse to follow all military commands! Don't fight the
terrorists aka CIA war!
The fact that it is so plainly stated that the intelligence apparatus run the country and none
dare stand against them is evidence that it is high time for a president and the people to take
them down.
Saul Alinsky's Rule #1 is to appear more powerful than you are in order to cultivate fear in
your enemies. The American intelligence community and military-industrial complex are rotten and
termite-eaten by corruption.
Every successful revolution is merely the kicking in of a door that is already rotten. . I'm
not sure Trump is the guy for it, but I'd sure like to see him try.
There's too many Eyes, and everybody will know who planned it and who did it, so he won't be
Assassinated by physical means, just Politically Assassinated.
"... In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this." ..."
"... No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment ..."
"... Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder. ..."
It isn't just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media
figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.
It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex
base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks
the fate of JFK.
While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to
script reality, not him.
Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding
him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).
Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to
the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious
response.
Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line
is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.
There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting
into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation
too far.
It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy
for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the
big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death,
drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.
If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people
who took out Kennedy there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge.
And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against
the national-security establishment.
In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment,
new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really
dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this."
[ ]
No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national
security establishment [ ] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment
at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.
Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter
them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of
fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder.
Kennedy's antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed
the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called
for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested
that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
[ ]
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated
secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro
, both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.
[ ]
Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.
And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price
for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.
It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.
The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or
follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace
with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.
There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don't let
the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution
paradigm.
True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence
of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.
As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia
may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with
Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.
If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then
things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a 'wild card' path styled
after the ego of President Trump.
With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged
in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and
there are clearly contingencies in place.
Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the
shadow government taking control of President Trump's administration before it was even formed:
All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies
including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired
CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle
with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not
fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his
home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.
What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more
than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we
know how that worked out for JFK.
Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal
an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a
fascinating study in human dynamics.
Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account
as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.
One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never
convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure
of the 2016 losses.
"... "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place." ..."
If Trump is worried about the existence of some "deep state" his first act in office should
be to demand a complete list of every intelligence sector employee, and the budgets, and dig in
and inform himself. They all work for him now.
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the
man puts America first, really says it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to
act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is
so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify
arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.
Arrest Hillary & Bill Clinton. Freeze their assets. RICO The Clinton Foundation & bring down
the Satanic Global Crime Syndicate.
This will de facto Drain the Swamp. Then, immediately End the Fed.
These Scum Fuck Occultist have been "Illuminated" and forced out into the light. This opportunity
to peacefully "Drain the Swamp" cannot be squandered.
"With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be
simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take
many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place."
Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is both a Goldmanite and, like his convict father, a neocon.
It is Jared Kushner who chose all the Goldmanites and Neocons in Trump's Cabinet, just as it was
Kushner who got rid of Gov. Chris Christie, the former NJ Prosecutor who put Jared's dad, Charles
Kushner, in Federal prison.
Consequently, there will be no Trump assassination, because Kushner and his Goldmanites will
not allow it. VP-Elect Mike Pence may be a lot of things, but a Goldmanite is not one of them.
The Goldmanites, historically, were not his campaign contributors, and they do not want him in
the Presidency. Trump will be protected BY Deep State and won't need to be protected FROM Deep
State.
More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They're Coming For Your Democracy"
"...Perkins has just reissued his book with major updates. The basic premise of the book remains
the same, but the update shows how the economic hit man approach has evolved in the last 12 years.
Among other things, U.S. cities are now on the target list. The combination of debt, enforced
austerity, underinvestment, privatization, and the undermining of democratically elected governments
is now happening here" ... "Things have just gotten so much worse in the last 12 years since the
first Confessions was written.
Economic hit men and jackals have expanded tremendously, including the United States and Europe.
Back in my day we were pretty much limited to what we called the third world, or economically
developing countries, but now it's everywhere. And in fact, the cancer of the corporate empire
has metastasized into what I would call a failed global death economy. This is an economy that's
based on destroying the very resources upon which it depends, and upon the military. It's become
totally global, and it's a failure."
Plan on a "treasure hunt" that will result in the likes of POTUS "transvestitus" John "winter
soldier" Kerry and John "demonic" Leprechaun Brennan being FOUND, SKINNED and put on display in
front of their respective places of work!...
What's frightening is that as the elites had NO IDEA hillary would lose so bad, they might
have equally NO IDEA of the massive blowback should they go through with anything like this.
A lot of US spooks are on the gravy train. Do you know how many Orlando McMansions and DC Colonials
have been bought with black bag money? There are Billions flowing in a river through the Middle
East.
Also, these fuckers don't know how to do anything but destroy value and kill people. They know
this is the only job they can get. They are incompetent in the private market. Look at the MI6
idiot who writes worse than a high school kid.
CIA isn't going to give that up without a fight. They are cornered rats. When Putin is in Iceland
I hope he can relate this survival story to President Trump:
Following World War II, in which his father served with the Russian secret police, his parents
move into a communal apartment in St. Petersburg where they eventually give birth to Putin (1952).
Because Russia is facing major poverty and is still recovering from the war, the apartment is,
in the words of Putin's school teacher, "horrid without any conveniences" (10). Although he goes
on to explain his experiences with the other families in the commune, none of whom had any children,
he briefly tells a story of the first time he learned "the meaning of the word cornered."
There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the
word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase
them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove
it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me.
I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and
down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and managed to slam the door shut in its nose.
(10)
I call bullshit, Slavo. I feel certain Mr. T. fully understands the deep state and watched
Ike's last address. There is an equally powerful 'state' in this nation and it is not born out
of the government. Even the negroes will rally to his side if they feel he's a better populist
alternative to the deep state.
I'm sure that I would giggle to read who is getting interviewed for T's personal security.
He's not going to go driving in chicago with the top down. Kennedy pissed off all sides of power.
I do not see T having a really bad day while traveling or flying. Kennedy was arrogant in a
much different way. This time 'round, it's more like Adolf choosing sides with Earnst Rhom and
brown shirts over the Gestapo.
And if 'they' are listening, as they usually are... safe drivers are rewarded with auto insurance.
Getting yearly full on check ups should drop bucks on your insurance. No penalties for being unhealthy,
but rewards for being healthy. It's called health care, not sick care. Get a camera shoved up
your ass every ten years after 50? discount! oh... and that shouldn't cost 15k
If the central idiots assassinate Trump, there should be massive wildcat strikes and refusal
to buy anything, and the military should refuse to follow all military commands! Don't fight the
terrorists aka CIA war!
The fact that it is so plainly stated that the intelligence apparatus run the country and none
dare stand against them is evidence that it is high time for a president and the people to take
them down.
Saul Alinsky's Rule #1 is to appear more powerful than you are in order to cultivate fear in
your enemies. The American intelligence community and military-industrial complex are rotten and
termite-eaten by corruption.
Every successful revolution is merely the kicking in of a door that is already rotten. . I'm
not sure Trump is the guy for it, but I'd sure like to see him try.
There's too many Eyes, and everybody will know who planned it and who did it, so he won't be
Assassinated by physical means, just Politically Assassinated.
"... In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this." ..."
"... No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment ..."
"... Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder. ..."
It isn't just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media
figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.
It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex
base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks
the fate of JFK.
While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to
script reality, not him.
Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding
him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).
Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to
the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious
response.
Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line
is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.
There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting
into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation
too far.
It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy
for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the
big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death,
drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.
If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people
who took out Kennedy there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge.
And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against
the national-security establishment.
In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment,
new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really
dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this."
[ ]
No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national
security establishment [ ] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment
at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.
Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter
them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of
fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder.
Kennedy's antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed
the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called
for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested
that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
[ ]
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated
secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro
, both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.
[ ]
Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.
And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price
for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.
It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.
The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or
follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace
with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.
There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don't let
the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution
paradigm.
True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence
of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.
As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia
may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with
Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.
If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then
things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a 'wild card' path styled
after the ego of President Trump.
With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged
in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and
there are clearly contingencies in place.
Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the
shadow government taking control of President Trump's administration before it was even formed:
All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies
including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired
CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle
with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not
fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his
home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.
What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more
than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we
know how that worked out for JFK.
Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal
an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a
fascinating study in human dynamics.
Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account
as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.
One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never
convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure
of the 2016 losses.
It did not take long before we knew there was no hope of change from President Obama. But at least
he went into his inauguration with an unprecedented number of Americans on the Mall showing their
support for the President of Change. Hope was abundant.
But with Trump, we are already losing faith, if not yet with him, at least with his choice
of those who comprise his government even before Trump is inaugurated.
Trump's choice for Secretary of State not only sounds like the neoconservatives in declaring
Russia to be a threat to the United States and all of Europe, but also sounds like Hillary Clinton
in declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US dominance. One would think that the chairman
of Exxon was not an idiot, but I am no longer sure. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson
said that China's access to its own South China Sea is "not going to be allowed."
Here is Tillerson's statement: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first,
the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."
I mean, really, what is Tillerson going to do about it except get the world blown up. China's
response was as pointed as a response can be:
Tillerson "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of threats. If Trump's
diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare
for a military clash. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to
force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."
So Trump is not even inaugurated and his idiot nominee for Secretary of State has already created
an animosity relationship with two nuclear powers capable of completely destroying all of the
West for eternity. And this makes the US Senate comfortable with Tillerson. The imbeciles should
be scared out of their wits, assuming they have any.
One of the reasons that Russia rescued Syria from Washington's overthrow is that Russia understood
that Washington's next target would be Iran and from a destroyed Iran terrorism would be exported
into the Russian Federation. There is an axis of countries threatened by US supported terrorism-Syria,
Iran, Russia, China.
Trump says he wants to normalize relations with Russia and to open up business opportunities
in the place of conflict. But to normalize relations with Russia requires also normalizing relations
with Iran and China.
Judging from their public statements, Trump's announced government has targeted Iran for destabilization.
Trump's appointees as National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA
all regard Iran incorrectly as a terrorist state that must be overthrown.
But Russia cannot allow Washington to overthrow the stable government in Iran and will not
allow it. China's investments in Iranian oil imply that China also will not permit Washington's
overthrow of Iran. China has already suffered from its lost investments in Libyan oil as the result
of the Obama regimes overthrow of the Libyan government.
Realistically speaking, it looks like the Trump Presidency is already defeated by his own appointees
independently of the ridiculous and completely unbelievable propaganda put out by the CIA and
broadcast by the presstitute media in the US, UK, and Europe. The New York Times, Washington Post,
CNN, and BBC have lowered themselves below the National Enquirer.
If the Chairman of Exxon and a Lt. General are not capable of standing up to the imbecilic
Congress, they are unfit for office. That they did not stand up is an indication that they lack
the strength that Trump needs if he is to bring change from the top.
If Trump is unable to change US foreign policy, thermonuclear war and the destruction of Earth
are inevitable.
NYT tries to hide one interesting nuance: whether emails in Huma computer contained the set of emails deleted by Hillary from her.
Notable quotes:
"... The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically motivated. ..."
"... Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her. ..."
"... In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome. ..."
"... Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct. In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs. ..."
"... Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews. ..."
"... Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system. ..."
Comey Letter on Clinton Email Is Subject of Justice Dept. Inquiry
By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU and MATT APUZZO
JAN. 12, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department's inspector general said Thursday that he would open a broad investigation into how the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, handled the case over Hillary Clinton's emails, including his decision to discuss it at a news
conference and to disclose 11 days before the election that he had new information that could lead him to reopen it.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, will not look into the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her aides. But
he will review actions Mr. Comey took that Mrs. Clinton and many of her supporters believe cost her the election.
They are: the news conference in July at which he announced he was not indicting Mrs. Clinton but described her behavior as
"extremely careless"; the letter to Congress in late October in which he said that newly discovered emails could potentially change
the outcome of the F.B.I.'s investigation; and the letter three days before the election in which he said that he was closing
it again.
The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of
Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically
motivated.
For Mr. Comey and the agency he heads, the Clinton investigation was politically fraught from the moment the F.B.I. received
a referral in July 2015 to determine whether Mrs. Clinton and her aides had mishandled classified information. Senior F.B.I. officials
believed there was never going to be a good outcome, since it put them in the middle of a bitterly partisan issue.
Whatever the decision on whether to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime, Mr. Comey, a Republican former Justice Department official
appointed by President Obama, was going to get hammered. And he was.
Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked
Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her.
The Clinton campaign believed the F.B.I. investigation was overblown and seriously damaged her chances to win the White House
and resented Mr. Comey's comments about Mrs. Clinton at his news conference. But the campaign was particularly upset about Mr.
Comey's two letters, which created a wave of damaging news stories at the end of the campaign, when Mrs. Clinton and her supporters
thought they had put the email issue behind them.
In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the
estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome.
The Clinton campaign said Mr. Comey's actions quite likely caused a significant number of undecided voters to cast ballots
for President-elect Donald J. Trump.
F.B.I. officials said Thursday that they welcomed the scrutiny. In a statement, Mr. Comey described Mr. Horowitz as "professional
and independent" and promised to cooperate with his investigation. "I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations
with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency," Mr. Comey said.
Brian Fallon, the former press secretary for the Clinton campaign and the former top spokesman for the Justice Department,
said the inspector general's investigation was long overdue.
"This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey's drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,"
he said. "A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore
the F.B.I.'s reputation as a nonpartisan institution."
Mr. Horowitz has the authority to recommend a criminal investigation if he finds evidence of illegality, but there has been
no suggestion that Mr. Comey's actions were unlawful. Rather, the question has been whether he acted inappropriately, showed bad
judgment or violated Justice Department guidelines. It is not clear what the consequences would be for Mr. Comey if he was found
to have done any of those things.
The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have a longstanding policy against discussing criminal investigations. Another Justice
Department policy declares that politics should play no role in investigative decisions. Both Democratic and Republican administrations
have interpreted that policy broadly to prohibit taking any steps that might even hint at an impression of partisanship.
Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation
of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct.
In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive
operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs.
As part of the review, the inspector general will examine other issues related to the email investigation that Republicans
have raised. They include whether the deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew G. McCabe, should have recused himself from any involvement
in it.
In 2015, Mr. McCabe's wife ran for a State Senate seat in Virginia as a Democrat and accepted nearly $500,000 in political
contributions from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a key ally of the Clintons. Though Mr. McCabe did not assume his post until February
2016, months after his wife was defeated, critics both within the agency and outside of it felt that he should have recused himself.
The F.B.I. has said Mr. McCabe played no role in his wife's campaign. He also told his superiors she was running and sought
ethics advice from F.B.I. officials.
Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had
improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the
campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton.
Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors
general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews.
The law grew out of skirmishes between the F.B.I. and the Justice Department inspector general over attempts by the F.B.I.
to keep grand jury material and other records off limits. The new law means Mr. Horowitz's investigators should have access to
any records deemed relevant.
Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing
during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system.
Although the president does not need cause to fire the F.B.I. director, a critical inspector general report could provide justification
to do so if Mr. Trump is looking for some.
This was pretty dirty provocation by Hillary Clinton close circle, as we now know who paid money
for it.
Notable quotes:
"... A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this. ..."
"... A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin, without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead. They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it. ..."
"... The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign. ..."
"... The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much of the "information" is bought. ..."
"... Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing intelligence to sell. ..."
"... There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer, Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier? ..."
The mainstream media's extreme enthusiasm for the
Hitler Diaries shows their
rush to embrace any forgery if it is big and astonishing enough.
For the Guardian to lead with such an obvious forgery as the Trump "commercial
intelligence reports" is the final evidence of the demise of that newspaper's journalistic values.
We are now told that the reports were written by Mr Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6
man, for Orbis Business Intelligence. Here are a short list of six impossible things we are
asked to believe before breakfast:
1) Vladimir Putin had a five year (later stated as eight year) plan to run Donald Trump as a "Manchurian
candidate" for President and Trump was an active and knowing partner in Putin's scheme.
2) Hillary Clinton is so stupid and unaware that she held compromising conversations over telephone
lines whilst in Russia itself.
3) Trump's lawyer/adviser Mr Cohen was so stupid he held meetings in Prague with the hacker/groups
themselves in person to arrange payment, along with senior officials of the Russian security services.
The NSA, CIA and FBI are so incompetent they did not monitor this meeting, and somehow the NSA failed
to pick up on the electronic and telephone communications involved in organising it. Therefore Mr
Cohen was never questioned over this alleged and improbable serious criminal activity.
4) A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and
all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite
their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them
to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this.
5) A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia
for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin,
without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant
enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can
for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian
security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead.
They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it.
6) Donald Trump's real interest is his vast financial commitment in China, and he has little investment
in Russia, according to the reports. Yet he spent the entire election campaign advocating closer
ties with Russia and demonizing and antagonizing China.
Michael Cohen has now stated he has never been to Prague in his life. If that is true the extremely
weak credibility of the entire forgery collapses in total. What is more, contrary to the claims of
the Guardian and Washington Post that the material is "unverifiable", the veracity of it could be
tested extremely easily by the most basic journalism, ie asking Mr Cohen who has produced his passport.
The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news
the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic
journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign.
The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself
and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much
of the "information" is bought. Contacts who sell you information will of course invent the kind
of thing you want to hear to increase their income. That was the fundamental problem with much of
the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing
intelligence to sell.
There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer,
Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked
the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier?
As forgeries go, this is really not in the least convincing.
It was very obviously not written seriatim on the dates stated but forged as a collection and
with hindsight. I might add I do not include the golden showers among the impossible aspects. I have
no idea if it is true and neither do I care. Given Trump's wealth and history,
I think we can say with confidence that he has indulged whatever his sexual preferences might
be all over the world and not just in Russia. It seems most improbable he would succumb to blackmail
over it and not brazen it out. I suppose it could be taken as the sole example of trickledown theory
actually working.
You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization
on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning
to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.
a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America,
and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.
Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good
at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.
"... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
"... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
"... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
"... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
"... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
"... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
"... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
"... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
"... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
"... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
"... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
"... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
"... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
"... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
"... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
"... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
"... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
"... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
"... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
"... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
"... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
"... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
"... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
"... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
"... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
"... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
"... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
"... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives
claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of
the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference
in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past
work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing
exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according
to two national security officials.
When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly,
there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just
a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even
legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example,
such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability
of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true
document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from
sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.
The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV,
directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security
services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence
" exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him
."
Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English
it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior
one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques.
The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after
"source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence
agencies classify their sources.
I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what
they are talking about.
This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.
First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political
and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup
d'etat.
Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian
techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians,
they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would
make Trump a traitor, by the way.
Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House".
We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed
has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed
News is publishing the
full document so
that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels
of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!
Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump,
it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a
legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible"
even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record
his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting
their behavior before him.
Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and
disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting
this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC
and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full
state of war against Donald Trump.
All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House
(I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly
crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared
war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.
[Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do
that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating
them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which
have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin
did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags
or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to
hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House
or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated
all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage.
Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose
best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him
to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.
As
I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily
dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump,
the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress
impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas).
At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in
danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as
a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the
Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat
against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their
values and their country.
In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they
are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy.
And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often
care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump
and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection,
we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is
the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police,
security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a
Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.
I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up
and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
that they are not after you ".
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump)
recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country,
a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very
clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic,
and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.
His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media,
Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing
the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.
I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very
violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is
at the stake.
Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and
the nationalisation of everything.
Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky
tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.
After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has
support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must
separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much
safer World.
This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness
make it almost a possibility.
Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.
One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven
no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those
are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer.
Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll
..ForeverWar!
Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated -
one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the
common interest.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post
represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the
Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once,
it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really
what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold
on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting
women around, and acting like some rapper thug?
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.
BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't
British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?
Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans
have been spilled.
PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.
Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out
early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot
of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro
myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents
suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers
That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal
error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what
it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on
the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump
Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged
drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern
accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about
whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction
we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my
uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.
I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a
lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name
is pretty WASP-y.
But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never
did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just
one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."
I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is
for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen.
The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.
All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that.
That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.
The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in
which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and
if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.
There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the
case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in
which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.
It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear
since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural
affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing
Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.
So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.
You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives
Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.
Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected,
guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally
out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal
economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate
identity.
Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive,
since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses
then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while
still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives
replaced.
Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US
in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power
in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges
of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.
Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA
and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation
in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests
of the United States.
Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as
America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.
"Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly
in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"
"Exploited" Miro23 ?
This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..
Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of
handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would
have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers
pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......
14,300,000 people.!
That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.
This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".
Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...
A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --
This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.
Its absolutely "mind -numbing"
Its obscene.
And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....
BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".
This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.
Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.
This cannot continue.
The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.
And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down
on this....and they ain't gonna budge --
Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --
I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them
may finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such
case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
"And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities,
who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"
One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand
against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program.
But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon
squad may be in error.
I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still
completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert
British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.
The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act
was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with
very aggressive racial grievance agitation.
The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match
It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump
is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about
them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.
Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and
credibility to this threadbare effort.
The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest
form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.
Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.
On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper
(mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness
during depressive phases.
The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written
by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but
they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.
The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted
it as true.
Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.
Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.
Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen
somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.
That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic
party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?
McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims
and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem
to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former
MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.
Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged
on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence'
agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying
It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
.
Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.
They are cleary sn.
If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
. . .
I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis
. It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows
how to make a mess of things but not much else.
I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent
people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.
"...incompetent CIA.."
Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent
professionals.
Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
"I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case."
Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle
for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep
state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did
9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take
a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the
white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!
Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party
Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world
behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that
operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their
political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind
The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future
press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply
not very bright.
There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't
serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation
you kind of have to.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they
did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes
and take a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of
the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of
us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.
I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.
I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may
finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.
The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too
obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.
"... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
"... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
"... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
"... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
"... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
"... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
"... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
"... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
"... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
"... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
"... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
"... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
"... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
"... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
"... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
"... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
"... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
"... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
"... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
"... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
"... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
"... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
"... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
"... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
"... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
"... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
"... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
"... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives
claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of
the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference
in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past
work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing
exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according
to two national security officials.
When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly,
there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just
a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even
legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example,
such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability
of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true
document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from
sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.
The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV,
directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security
services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence
" exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him
."
Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English
it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior
one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques.
The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after
"source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence
agencies classify their sources.
I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what
they are talking about.
This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.
First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political
and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup
d'etat.
Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian
techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians,
they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would
make Trump a traitor, by the way.
Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House".
We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed
has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed
News is publishing the
full document so
that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels
of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!
Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump,
it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a
legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible"
even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record
his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting
their behavior before him.
Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and
disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting
this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC
and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full
state of war against Donald Trump.
All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House
(I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly
crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared
war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.
[Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do
that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating
them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which
have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin
did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags
or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to
hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House
or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated
all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage.
Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose
best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him
to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.
As
I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily
dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump,
the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress
impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas).
At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in
danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as
a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the
Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat
against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their
values and their country.
In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they
are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy.
And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often
care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump
and some wannabe President ŕ la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection,
we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is
the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police,
security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a
Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.
I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up
and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
that they are not after you ".
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump)
recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country,
a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very
clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic,
and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.
His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media,
Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing
the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.
I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very
violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is
at the stake.
Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and
the nationalisation of everything.
Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky
tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.
After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has
support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must
separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much
safer World.
This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness
make it almost a possibility.
Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.
One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven
no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those
are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer.
Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll
..ForeverWar!
Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated -
one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the
common interest.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post
represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the
Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once,
it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really
what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold
on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting
women around, and acting like some rapper thug?
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.
BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't
British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?
Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans
have been spilled.
PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.
Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out
early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot
of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro
myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents
suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers
That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal
error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what
it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on
the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump
Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged
drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern
accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about
whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction
we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my
uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.
I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a
lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name
is pretty WASP-y.
But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never
did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just
one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."
I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is
for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen.
The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.
All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that.
That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.
The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in
which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and
if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.
There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the
case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in
which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.
It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear
since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural
affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing
Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.
So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.
You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives
Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.
Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected,
guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally
out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal
economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate
identity.
Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive,
since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses
then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while
still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives
replaced.
Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US
in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power
in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges
of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.
Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA
and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation
in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests
of the United States.
Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as
America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.
"Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly
in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"
"Exploited" Miro23 ?
This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..
Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of
handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would
have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers
pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......
14,300,000 people.!
That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.
This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".
Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...
A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --
This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.
Its absolutely "mind -numbing"
Its obscene.
And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....
BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".
This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.
Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.
This cannot continue.
The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.
And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down
on this....and they ain't gonna budge --
Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --
I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them
may finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such
case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
"And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities,
who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"
One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand
against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program.
But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon
squad may be in error.
I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still
completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert
British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.
The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act
was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with
very aggressive racial grievance agitation.
The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match
It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump
is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about
them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.
Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and
credibility to this threadbare effort.
The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest
form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.
Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.
On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper
(mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness
during depressive phases.
The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written
by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but
they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.
The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted
it as true.
Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.
Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.
Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen
somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.
That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic
party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?
McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims
and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem
to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former
MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.
Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged
on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence'
agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying
It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
.
Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.
They are cleary sn.
If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
. . .
I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis
. It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows
how to make a mess of things but not much else.
I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent
people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.
"...incompetent CIA.."
Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent
professionals.
Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
"I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case."
Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle
for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep
state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did
9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take
a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the
white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!
Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party
Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world
behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that
operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their
political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind
The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future
press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply
not very bright.
There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't
serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation
you kind of have to.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they
did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes
and take a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of
the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of
us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.
I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.
I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may
finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.
The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too
obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.
You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like,
from any credible or not credible person or organization on the planet, and
then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The
American Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a one flight up gentleman's
parlor on old Times Square.
a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage.
the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America, and Europe as well, has
been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some
serious resistance.
Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me,
and every one else. Not that he is especially good at what he is supposed
to be doing though. Tucker is much better.
"... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis.
So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.
To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political
scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it
is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...
The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America
specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow
the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness –
everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."
In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy
that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "
Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's
ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots
don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made
sure the winners power was firmly planted.
From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by
its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees
with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.
Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to "Trust, Don't Verify" in New Cold War
By Mark Weisbrot
Just as the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, the first casualty of the New Cold War is irony. Our most prominent
journalists seem to have missed the Orwellian irony of Senator John McCain asking Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James
Clapper at Friday's Senate hearings if Julian Assange has any credibility. Assange has maintained that the hacked or leaked emails
of Democratic Party officials did not come from the Russian government, or any other government.
As is well known, Clapper lied to Congress about a serious violation of the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans.
This lie is a crime for which he actually could have been prosecuted.
In March 2013, Clapper falsely answered, "No, sir" to the question, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions,
or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He later admitted that his answer was untrue.
Clapper lied again in Friday's testimony, saying that Assange was "under indictment" for "a sexual crime." In fact, Assange
has not been indicted for anything, and the government of Sweden has never even charged him with a crime. In reality, he is a
political prisoner, and the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has found that he has been arbitrarily detained
since 2010 by the UK and Sweden, and ordered his release and compensation. He has offered from the beginning of his political
persecution to co-operate with the Swedish authorities in any investigation, and to be interviewed at any time in London. He could
not safely return to Sweden without guarantees that he would not be sent to the US, where he currently faces a high likelihood
of imprisonment (even before any trial) for having published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes and other embarrassments.
For years, neither Sweden nor the UK would agree to that because, it appears, their foreign ministries are collaborating with
the US government to keep him imprisoned.
For anyone on a jury who had to weigh the testimony of Clapper against that of Assange, it would be a no-brainer. Not only
is Clapper a proven and serial liar, but in 10 years of WikiLeaks revelations, Assange has never been shown to have lied about
anything.
That said, it is entirely possible the Russian government was involved in the hacking of emails here, and that Assange and
WikiLeaks would not necessarily be able to identify the original source of the leaks, which is very difficult to do. However,
We the People have yet to be presented with evidence that Russian hacking is what actually happened.
But the media has become so distracted with the festivities at America's new 1950's theme party, hating on Putin and Russia
like there's no tomorrow, that the lack of evidence has become almost irrelevant to the big media conversation. The DNI report
released on Friday, supposedly to provide the public with evidence that the Russian government had indeed hacked emails in order
to influence the US elections, contained no actual evidence that they did so. There was a lot of evidence that Trump was the preferred
candidate of Putin and his government. But we didn't need evidence for this; pure logic would have sufficed. What government wouldn't
favor a candidate who promises better relations with them?
About half of the report was littered with a long rant against Russian-sponsored media, including the television station Russia
Today. Here is another deep irony: the media that swung the election for Trump was not Russian but American, despite the fact
that most of these journalists and editors found the candidate repellent. Trump's huge advantage in free publicity not only won
him the primary, but continued into the general election. It was the US media that made the Comey letter so important, because
the broadcast media used it to displace Trump's scandals, including the allegations of sexual assaults, in the crucial last 11
days when millions of voters made up their minds.
Another irony: The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many
hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did
to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016? Of course that is no justification for any foreign intervention
here, but it is part of the current story if we want to understand it. Washington's intervention in Ukraine, for example, helped
push that country into a civil war that became the main cause of the current state of Cold War between the US and Russia....
'The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions
of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections
was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016?'
Indeed. However, we may insist (feebly) that
this is NOT something which Great Powers do
to one another.
"The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The initial
goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the
Eastern Front. After winning World War I, the Allies militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia. Allied efforts
were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness after they just finished greater conflict, and a lack of domestic support.
These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia and
Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[3]"
"... Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular. ..."
"... MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass ..."
"... Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way). ..."
"... But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because: ..."
"... The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks! ..."
"... The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides. ..."
"... A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. ..."
"... Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!" ..."
"... On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: ..."
"... The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!" ..."
"... Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... ..."
"... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable. ..."
"... The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government ..."
"... Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office. ..."
"... Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson. ..."
"... Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world. ..."
"... Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry. ..."
"... Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. ..."
"... Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat. ..."
"... These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting. ..."
"... History without context is meaningless. ..."
"... Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers ..."
"... Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies. ..."
We have very little indication of what policies Donald
Trump will try to follow or even what kind of president he will be. The U.S. press corps did an
extraordinarily execrable job in covering the rise of Trump--even worse than it usually does.
Even the most sophisticated of audiences--those interested in asset prices and how they are affected
by government policies--have very little insight into Trump's views or those of his key associates.
Will Donald Trump turn out to be the equivalent of Ronald Reagan -- someone who comes into office
from the world of celebrity with a great many unfixed policy intuitions, but no consistent plan?
Will he turn out to be the equivalent of Silvio Berlusconi, who regards the presidency as an opportunity
to wreak his kleptocratic will on the country?
Or will he turn out to be someone worse than Berlusconi?
I would say that Trump could be any of four figures...
Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead
of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies
are popular.
MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to
pass
Congress has power but they must shift from opposition mode to governing mode. I expect much
overreach and 'creative' destruction
Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something
like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats,
while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way).
But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because:
1. The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's
systems theory, folks!
2. The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides.
3. A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this
bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew.
4. There is a mid-term election less than 2 years from now.
Foreign policy? Putin wanted Trump to win, but NOT to make the U.S. stronger. He wants a weaker
US. Why? Because the Russians hate the US for screwing them economically after the Iron Curtain
fell, with trying to impose a bunch of free-market fundamentalist ignorance...
Were that not bad enough, the US slapped on oil sanctions recently, after Putin tried shoring-up
his borders against NATO expansion and against Islamic terrorists.
... ... ...
Whether you yourself think it's good or bad to oppose Russia -- and whatever you think of Putin's
tactics in response -- is not the point here. Fact is, Putin hates the US. Therefore, Putin is
not going to help anyone whom he thinks will make the US stronger or more respected in the world.
Russian psych profiling may suggest that Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted
moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself,
with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!"
On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains
of the U.S., before getting out of the country: Trump wants to tear up the big trade deals and
make every country go into bilateral negotiations with his trade team... BUT those countries are
all going to say, "Forget it! We just spent 6 years negotiating, and we know we can't trust the
US anymore!"...
Then, they are going to turn around and join China's new global trade organization, which was
suddenly announced the DAY AFTER Trump's election (funny, that, after years of planning, building
forward military bases in the Pacific, etc.) The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China
-- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!"
Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded
voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister
enough... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that
gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism
won't be nearly as profitable.
"...And golly, honey, there's plenty of pretty places over there to build new mansions, for
both you, AND the mistress..." Meanwhile, back in the U.S., voters will continue walking around
with their thumbs up their butts, & trying to prevent other Americans from getting healthcare,
trying to prevent them from voting, etc... To get cash, the U.S. can join into a big flea market
with the Brexiters, and we can all swap old Beatles vinyl...
The bureaucracy will run things? This is not going to happen, governance will stall or cease.
Let me see, a party that says our form of govt is the problem. A party who has obstructed matters
to cause dysfunction in govt on purpose, and who is entertaining nominees to head these agencies
who do not care that they exist, bills introduced already to allow pay even to the individual
to be cut , and to smooth firing processes, with an incoming group who surfaces transition-team
surveys for the purposes of chilling efforts with the agencies even before they take control,
on climate change for instance, well, the bureaucracy is demoralized, and threatened. The dysfunction
of the American 'experiment' in self government will be harmed, perhaps accomplished finally.
And when they get their legs about them with new judiciary appointments they then should thread
cases via these courts so holdings they get won't be appealed, giving them full control, with
still the purpose being dysfunction for what has been the generally applicable law before. Ok
with them, it would seem.
jonny bakho -> JF... , -1
The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from
the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage
the government
"Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to push the value
of the dollar up by 70%..."
-- Brad DeLong
[ The real trade-weighted price of the dollar increased by about 45% between 1980 and March
1985 and then declined and finished the Reagan presidency about 5% below the level of 1980. ]
[I set the Way-back machine to Links for 12-31-16 and copied what mrrunangun said to me then.
From my experience mrrunangun is a more reliable source than the MSM, but then so is my wife and
over half of the random strangers that I meet in Walmart.]
Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its
cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change
if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they
are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend
to curry favor with interests they affect in office.
Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both.
He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries,
their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game
in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without
the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far
less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson.
Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was
also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most
technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world.
Many of the big errors in banking
over the past 20 years have been due to inadequate supervision of trading units. Traders learn
to hide losses using the computer systems of the banks and clearing houses. The Barclay's Singapore
disaster, the London whale, the UBS fiasco, the DB bond desk fiasco all got out of hand because
traders' losing positions went undetected by the traders' supervisors who lacked the technical
sophistication necessary to provide adequate supervision. Mnuchin knows the technology and
how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he
aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary
over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry.
Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his
intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, a dark-skinned
black man was named "snowball" and, after getting slapped around for smiling at the DI's jokes,
the main character was named "Joker". Victor Krulak, a Marine general during the VietNam war,
got the name Brute because of his diminutive size. He became probably the only five foot four-inch
Marine general of the twentieth century. Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough,
effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat.
These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what
direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting.
Suri never really makes his case against belligerent deterrence because his historical references
are inconsistent with his thesis. As much as I agree with TR's "Walk soft and carry a big stick"
even that is a superficial take on Teddy Roosevelt's approach to diplomatic engagement, which
was a superior way to conduct foreign policy even compared to Taft's dollar diplomacy.
Taft's way was more readily assessable to the mediocre men that would normally lead our country
though, which is why Kissinger as Secretary of State held to it dearly. Buying peace is much cheaper
than waging war.
Understood. Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist and the US during his administration was isolationist.
That hardly sounds like a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong, but more like the opposite.
Suri's point was that circumstances can dictate significant reversals from original intentions
though. WW-II did not seem like our choice and certainly was reluctant more like WW-I rather than
a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong.
The US entered the Korean War because its presidents, first Truman and then Eisenhower were
more afraid of Joe McCarthy than China, also not a case of belligerent deterrence, just domino
theory.
Kennedy and Johnson just feared the anti-communist Republican hawks that remained after McCarthy
died more than they feared China, just more domino theory there too.
When we finally got a POTUS that did the full court press on belligerent deterrence, Reagan,
then peace broke out.
By this time Suri's case is getting real weak. The first Bush war, the daddy Bush war, was
just a reaction function and limited at that. The next two Bush wars, the baby Bush wars, were
finally belligerent deterrence on steroids, but also a reaction function or an over-reaction function
to 9/11.
Suri stands empty handed on his history, but that does not mean that he is wrong on his prognostications,
just unconvincing in his larger historical based argument aside from the notion of unintended
consequences. That alone may however be Donald Trumps undoing, but just as easily so from domestic
policy as foreign policy. Only time will tell. I prefer not to guess this one out too far myself,
unintended consequences being what they are and all.
Quite a lot; where to start? The world as it is vs. our wishful perceptions? I think remembering
that most problems requiring governmental action are really quite complicated and often have more
than one possible answer is essential. It's the simple arsed responses, so loved by the many,
that get us into some of the worst messes. The urge to tear it down and start anew, another source
of grief, again linked to the simple arsed, our most current response.
See Reagan and Ike as being dependent to a fault on their advisers (in the case of Reagan,
we really lucked out with Baker, Schultz, Deaver); Bush II as being dumb enough to think he was
smart when, in fact, he was too dumb for the job; and Drumpf, I suspect/fear, being of the same
ilk as Bush II.
For WWI context, I see: the swell of the industrial age, the vying for raw materials and markets,
all in a period when one saw the dying throes of colonialism and monarchies whilst no one seem
to grasp the reality of what was going on (bout where we find ourselves). Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited
thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers
Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying
throws of monarchies.
Relative to Suri's argument there was nothing about US foreign policy activism that got
us into WWI unless you want to consider the negative. Had the US been more involved in European
diplomacy in a cogent and persuasive manner then it may have averted the Prussian brinksmanship
that ignite WW-I. Theodore Roosevelt may have been capable of that, but not Taft nor Wilson.
I am actually surprised by the amount of Trump hating comments to this article.... What is so
criminal in trying to reorganize two of 12 Us intelligence agencies. Which might become too bloated
and deviate from their original purposes. Is not how restructuring is used in business world
?
And the number of commenters blaclmpousing Putin and Russia create great alarm.
Looks like the US MSM managed to brainwash the US population like in 50th during "Red Scare". Some
comments looks like
hate sessions from 1984.
Notable quotes:
"... Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. ..."
"... This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. ..."
"... The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. ..."
"... They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this. ..."
"... This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people. ..."
"... Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia? ..."
"... This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es. ..."
"The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized,"
an individual close to Trump's transition operation said. "They all need to be slimmed down. The
focus will be on restructuring agencies and how they interact." Trump is targeting the CIA and the ODNI as he publicly wars with the U.S. intelligence community
over its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Trump wants to shrink the ODNI, as he believes the agency established in 2004 as a response
to the 9/11 terror attacks has become bloated and politicized.
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences
abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's
policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information
media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors.
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December
28, 2012.
This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act
of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing
U.S. public opinion.
The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating
mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.
But the US public learned quickly and they are not buying the misinformation anymore.
1) Renewables:
"I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." - April 2016
2) Social media
"I understand social media. I understand the power
of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost
anybody, based on my results, right?" - November 2015
3) Debt
"Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt." - May 2016
4) Taxes, again
"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe
in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes." - May 2016
I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has
ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016
They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because
they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of
their own country. And you don't see this.
No, we haven't, and we didn't. In fact, his former boss -- Yeltsin -- hired Republican political consultants
to help his campaign.
Putin would like the world to believe that Russians fed up with bribery, extortion, the fall
of the ruble, and the fact that their votes don't count rising up and protesting was about outside
meddling, but it was internal.
And he responded by making protests illegal, getting rid of the election of governors (he appoints
them now), closing down critical reporting outlets, and some journalists were murdered.
You moron, I served the US for 20 years in the military, but facts are facts and we need to butt
the he!! out of other countries business, and until we do, they will continue to come after us.
How long were you in?
"I don't think people ought to say they know for sure there's only one. I
don't think they're likely to be proven correct. It shouldn't be portrayed as one
guilty party,"
"It's much more complicated than that. This is not an organized operation that is
hacking into a target.
It's more like a bunch of jackals at the carcass of an
antelope
."
Woolsey suggested China and Iran could be behind cyber breaches in the U.S.
"Is it Russian? Probably some," he said. "Is it Chinese and Iranian?
Maybe. We may find out more from Mr. Trump coming up today."
This follows Trump's comments on Sunday hinting he would reveal new
information about alleged Russian hacking
during a New Year's Eve celebration
at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla.
"[I know] things that other people don't know," he said. "I just want them to be
sure because it's a pretty serious charge. I think it's unfair if they don't know."
To which Woolsey contentiously also commented:
"There's a possibility that he is [playing us] a little bit."
But as is clear,
Woolsey's belief that the Russians "were in there" still
goes further than what Trump has said about the hacks
... which may be why
Woolsey has announced in a formal statement
"Effective immediately, Ambassador Woolsey is no longer a Senior
Adviser to President-elect Trump or the transition,"
Woolsey's
spokesman, Jonathan Franks, wrote in a statement that was first reported by CNN's
Jeremy Diamond.
"He wishes the President-elect and his Administration great success in
their time in office."
Furthermore, The Washington Post's
Philip
Rucker reports,
Woolsey resigned after being cut out of intelligence
talks with Trump and his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Here we go, this is from Buzzfeed
so according to the NYT's and Washington Post this source
would qualify as "fake news"...lol...but!...
"The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the
FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office,
the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and
U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of
requests for cooperation,
but
the FBI never
requested access to the DNC's computer servers,"
Eric
Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, told
BuzzFeed News in an email."
...but!...just looky here...we've got an actual
non-anonymous, real life, people-type person who is not
speaking from the shadows in an underground parking garage
its,
Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications
director.
I still think it is independent patriots assited by
patriotic insiders who exposed the DNC's criminal
activity.
Anyway, when do we get the criminal
investigation into the contents of the leaks? That's
where the meat is. Not that someone exposed the crimes;
they deserve a medal.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey,
was a vocal advocate of the 2003
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq who promoted
allegations that Saddam Hussein harbored
illegal weapons of mass destruction.
"... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
"... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
"... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
"... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ŕ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
"... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
The Trump Administration http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
via @WeeklyStandard
Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol
Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.
But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly
no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a
problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which
served the country reasonably well.
It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly
well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays,
some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with
considerable distinction.
Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts
spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget,
reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget
into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult
world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next
decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those
years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.
In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft
and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things:
He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he
commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he
contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.
The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration
and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing
national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those
years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.
President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that
of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and
also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's
sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where
they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.
Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately
depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump
brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile
experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows.
If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know
something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have
in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse
enterprises across the finish line.
To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the
presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.
It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of
governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with
the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority
to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory
led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and
forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional
normalcy.
If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena
of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.
But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed
by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce
an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican
normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great
again.
(Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft
& Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due
to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)
Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole
world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another
war like that.
"Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise
of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ŕ-vis other developed nations. "With
this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark"
comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support
her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment,
and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to
keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and
between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."
Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the
issues in a polite and congenial manner?
Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any
ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.
I have long held that America's Deep State
--the unelected National
Security State often referred to as the Shadow Government--
is not a unified
monolith but a deeply divided ecosystem
in which the dominant Neocon-Neoliberal
Oligarchy is being challenged by elements which
view the Neocon-Neoliberal
agenda as a threat to national security and the interests of the United States.
I call these anti-Neocon-Neoliberal elements
the progressive Deep State.
If you want a working definition of the Neocon-Neoliberal Deep State, Hillary
Clinton's quip--
we came, we saw, he died
--is a good summary:
a
bullying, arrogance-soaked state-within-a-state pursuing an agenda of ceaseless
intervention while operating a global Murder, Inc., supremely confident that no one in
the elected government can touch them.
Until Trump unexpectedly wrenched the presidency from the Neocon's candidate.
The Neocon Deep State's response was to manufacture a mass-media hysteria that Russia
had wrongfully deprived the Neocon's candidate (Hillary Clinton) of what was rightfully
hers: the presidency. (The Neocons operate their own version of
the divine right of
Political Nobility
.)
The Neocon-Neoliberals' strategy was to delegitimize Trump's victory by
ascribing it to "Russian Hacking," a claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated.
Now that this grasping-at-straws Hail Mary
coup attempt by a politicized CIA and
its corporate media mouthpiece
has failed,
the Neocon Deep State is about
to find out the Progressive Deep State finally has a president who is willing and able
to cut the Neocon-Neoliberals off at the knees.
If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it
doesn't work that way.
Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going
to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone
agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.
As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by
examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and
reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which
agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in
journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.
I have also long held that Wall Street's political dominance is part and
parcel of the Neocon-Neoliberal ideology
, and the progressive elements in the
Deep State also want to (finally) limit the power of the big banks and the rest of the
Wall Street crowd.
The split in the Deep State is a reflection of the
profound political
disunity
that is occurring in the U.S.
In other words, it isn't just
disunity in the masses or the political elites--it's a division in all levels of our
society.
The cause is not difficult to discern:
the concentration of wealth
and political power in the hands of the few is generating levels of inequality that
threaten democracy, the social order and the vitality of the economy:
As someone who has studied the Deep State for 40 years, I find it ironic that
so many self-identified "progressives" do not understand that the U.S. military is now
the Progressive element
and it's the civilian leadership--the
Neocon-Neoliberals-- who are responsible for leading the nation into quagmires and
handing the keys to the chicken coop to the wolves of Wall Street.
When military leaders such as Eric Shinseki questioned the Neocon's insane "strategy"
in Iraq--essentially a civilian fantasy of magical-thinking--the Neocons quickly
cashiered him (Shinseki was a wounded combat veteran of Vietnam who rose through the
ranks--the exact opposite of the coddled never-get-my-hands-dirty Elites in the civilian
Neocon-Neoliberal leadership.)
To the degree that the U.S. has become a
Third World Oligarchy
owned
and controlled by a financial-political Elite,
then the U.S. military is one of
the few national institutions that hasn't been corrupted by top-down politicization and
worship of Wall Street.
Shinseki et al. did not amass a fortune from Wall Street like Bill and Hillary
Clinton. The simple dictum--
follow the money
--maps the lay of the land rather
neatly.
The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must be
fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm.
That includes the
Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have enriched themselves
within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy.
If you are surprised that the Democratic Party, the CIA and Wall Street are all
hugging each other in the same cozy Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchic embrace, you shouldn't
be. Open your eyes.
The problem is that the deep state owns most if not all the wet workers.
They will do whatever the DS says since their paychecks depend upon it.
Best thing would be to ID the wet workers and give them X amount of time
to come in from the cold, then give them the choice of taking a payoff and
staying out of trouble or getting their wings clipped for violating parole,
or turning state's evidence in exchange for a job or getting their spawn
into good schools/jobs.
If they miss the deadline they default into "problems" and get dealt with
accordingly.
If Trump can cut the neo-fascist deep-state off at the knees, America can be
great again!
The Spanish-American Inquisition :
Mexican propaganda was the reason that people voted for Hillary Clinton. NYT
largest shareholder is Carlos Slim who has lost 40% of his net worth in the
last 2 years as a result of the peso. Trump would diminish his own personal
empire by further devaluation of the peso and by reducing Mexican
manufacturing.
The Mexican propaganda was not merely limited to the NYT. Telemundo also
played a large part in this. The infiltration of Mexican spies and
propagandists through telemundo owned by Comcast, the country's largest media
organization has completely compromised Comcast! All of their companies
endorsed Hillary in order to benefit the Mexican economy!
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to spread Cuban propaganda.
His adopted father was from Cuba. Since Jeff Bezos purchased WaPo, Obama has
restored relations with Cuba. Coincidence?! We think not!!!
CNN is Chilean propaganda -- What lengths will they go to in order to mislead
the public as the Chilean president owns Chilevisian which is a Time Warner
subsidiary and Time Warner owns CNN?! Trump's plan of rewriting NAFTA would be
less favorable to Chile than it is in its current form! CNN is trying to get
people to put the needs of the Chilean people above the needs of American
people!
Congress has the right to declare war, but the president is the commander in
chief. Let congress declare war on Russia and go and fight the Russians
themselves. They can declare war, but there will be nobody to fight it, unless
they do it themselves!
The Fed and the TBTF banks run Deep State, and according to the latest article
in the WSJ, Trump is beyond indebted to the TBTF banks. If true, this is scary
and gives Trump a pretty serious reason for putting so many Goldmanites in
positions of power in his Administration.
(Wall Street Journal)
"More than 150 financial institutions hold debt from President-elect Donald
Trump's businesses or businesses in which he is at least a 30 percent
stakeholder, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
That amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential conflicts of
interest as Trump prepares to begin his presidency.
When Trump submitted a required financial disclosure form with the Federal
Election Commission in May 2015, he listed 16 loans, collectively worth $315
million in debt, that his businesses had received from 10 companies, according
to the newspaper.
The Journal's analysis goes beyond those loans and includes debt held by
companies in which Trump is at least a 30 percent stakeholder, including, for
example, the companies which control 1290 Avenue of the Americas.
That building, owned by a partnership of companies that is 30 percent owned
by Trump, received $950 million in loans in 2012 from UBS Group AG, Bank of
China, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank, according to the report.
Deutsche Bank, a German institution, is currently under investigation by the
U.S. Justice Department for its equity trading with wealthy Russian clients.
In the case of Goldman Sachs, the bank now counts several its former
employees among the highest levels of the incoming Trump administration,
including former bank president Gary Cohn, who was appointed director of
Trump's National Economic Council."
"The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must
be fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm.
That
includes the Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have
enriched themselves within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy."
My ass!!!!! Mr
Trump is the right man at the right time to send these war criminals to hell
where they belong! HW, W, Bozo,Their globalists war cabinets,Their corrupt
underlings, #MAGA #Drain the Swamp
Trump needs to distract them quickly. So I have given this a few quick moments
of thought and came up with what should be Trump's first executive order.
Congress and all Federal employees are now required to use Obamacare as their
health plan.
Standard Disclaimer: Aside from watching Congressional critter's
heads explode, the disaster known as Obamacare would be either repealed or
fixed in a NY minute.
"At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better
among white voters without a college degree than Mitt
Romney did in 2012 - by a wide margin. Mrs. Clinton was
also not matching Mr. Obama's support among black voters."
"Mrs. Clinton's gains were concentrated among the most
affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr.
Trump's gains were concentrated among the lowest-income
and least-educated white voters."
Trump won the Republican primary and general election.
""Trump dominated - in the primary and general elections -
those districts represented by Congress's most conservative
members," Tim Alberta wrote in National Review (he is now at
Politico):
They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly
ideological agenda, but Trump's success has given them reason
to question that belief.
Among these archconservatives, who in the past had been
fanatical in their pursuit of ideological purity, the
realization that they can no longer depend on unfailing
support from their constituents has provoked deep anxiety."
These archconservatives who say that Trump's flimsy
mandate is just based on just 80,000 votes in the rustbelt
are in for a rude awakening. He won the primary. In Northern
States. In Southern States. Everywhere.
It's hilarious that the progressive neoliberals like
DeLong, Krugman, Drum, Yglesias etc have said exactly nothing
about Trump's tweets at Congressional Republicans over the
independent ethics committee.
There is a propaganda technique where you describe
straw-person characterizations then undermine them. When in
fact the whole longwinded campaign depends on readers and
listeners not bothering or too tired to focus and see the
mischaracterizations in the straw.
This whole thing is an
apologia, for propaganda purposes, as I see it.
We all need to take care. It takes a lot of money and
effort to organize such propaganda exercises. Please take
care in using and reusing these type things.
"Trump has converted the G.O.P. into a populist, America
First party" is an overstatement. He definitely made some
efforts in this direction, but it is premature to declare
this "fait accompli".
If we consider two possibilities: "GOP establishment chew
up Trump" and "Trump chew up GOP establishment" it is clear
that possibility is more probable.
Theoretically that might give Democrats a chance, but I
think the Clintonized Party is too corrupt to take this
chance. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought,
will stay bought." ;-)
In any case, 2018 elections will be very interesting as I
think that the process of a slow collapse of neoliberal
ideology and the rise of the US nationalist movements ("far
right") will continue unabated.
This is the same process that we see in full force in EU.
"... "And so, it's been light-years since that report on Iraq WMD has been done and there has been tremendous further development, I think, of our analytic capabilities as well as our intelligence-collecting capabilities," Brennan said. ..."
Outgoing CIA Director John Brennan said Tuesday that those who doubt the connection between
Russia and the hacking of Democratic Party email accounts, leading up to November's election,
should take a look at the forthcoming intelligence report "before they make those
judgments."
President-elect Donald Trump, among others, has questioned the
assessment that Russia is behind the hacking, citing past intelligence community mistakes,
including the finding of no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"In the aftermath of that, there was a total review of the review process and the analytic
process and the assessments that are done with the intelligence community with a number of
steps that were taken to ensure that we're going to be as accurate as possible," said Brennan
in an exit interview with PBS NewsHour co-anchor Judy Woodruff.
"And so, it's been light-years since that report on Iraq WMD has been done and there has
been tremendous further development, I think, of our analytic capabilities as well as our
intelligence-collecting capabilities," Brennan said.
"I would suggest to individuals that have not yet seen the report, who have not yet been
briefed on it, that they wait and see what it is that the intelligence community is putting
forward before they make those judgments," he said.
A joint
FBI-Department of Homeland Security report released on Dec. 29 has linked
Russian intelligence services to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. President
Barack Obama has requested an additional report from the intelligence community.
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump,
so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing
votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania,
and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to
exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real
numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and
Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip.
But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven
"poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're
off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could
replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a
credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic
Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national
party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible.
At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily
than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud.
With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for
violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when
they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.
And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might
improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats
in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary
election can really help.
From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US
ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).
After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite
reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the
USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov
and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate
speaks volumes.
The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate
(after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS,
she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to
neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that
this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization.
Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest
vote) might play a role.
Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she
is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A
simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the
resolution as a whole, to pass.
All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that
she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role
of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center
of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's
a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the
pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier
stage of the disease.
Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute
to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil
Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary
forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency
that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.
If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To
say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation),
who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.
Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to
the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing
When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA
his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
likbez -> anne...
Anne,
"An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no
such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."
You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came,
we saw, he died") is not shameful ?
An interesting approach I would say.
I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children
on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.
With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria,
you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.
Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(Legs for educational purposes only)
New
York Times
Senate to examine
financial records of firm behind notorious Trump-Russia dossier
![]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"73","h":"111","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=1107&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"95","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=949&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"95","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=949&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© Provided by Daily Intelligencer
![Washington Post - Washington Post]({"default":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBbyiSL.img?h=24&w=24&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f&f=png"} "Washington Post - Washington Post")
The Washington Post Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz
After Lincoln's assassination,
President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a
